U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut last week ruled that Oregon’s Measure 114 aligned with the Second Amendment. She claimed it met the requirement of complying with the nation’s tradition of “regulating uniquely dangerous features of weapons and firearms to protect public safety.”
Specifically, the new law bans large capacity magazines and mandates that private citizens acquire a permit before purchasing a firearm. The law does not affect magazines already possessed by Oregon citizens, but it contains a notably egregious provision limiting their usage.
These gun owners are not permitted to have these weapons outside of their homes for any reason other than hunting, shooting practice at a gun range or participating in shooting competitions.
The first to sue when the new state law was passed was the Oregon Firearms Association. The group published a strong rebuttal on its website immediately after the ruling came down Friday.
“Today, Judge Karin Immergut ruled against gun owners, the Second Amendment, and a basic understanding of the English language and ruled that Ballot Measure 114 is just fine. What we have read defies belief. While not entirely unexpected, Immergut’s ruling is simple nonsense and sure to be overturned at the 9th Circuit.”
The organization categorized Immergut as “painfully ignorant” on weapons issues and alleged that she is “in the pocket” of the state’s anti-gun Department of Justice.
The National Rifle Association is not part of the legal challenge, but the group termed the new law as “the nation’s most extreme gun control initiative.”
Lawyers for Second Amendment advocacy groups served notice Monday, the next business day after the Friday ruling, that they intend to appeal the ruling on Measure 114.
The Firearms Policy Coalition, the Second Amendment Foundation, two federally licensed firearms dealers and a professional shooter are bringing the litigation. The appeal notice was filed by attorney James L. Buchal in the U.S. District Court in Portland.
Thankfully for state gun owners, the new restrictions are on hold due to a separate challenge being heard by a Harney County judge.
Immergut declared in her ruling that the Constitution does not guarantee the right to possess magazines that hold over 10 rounds of ammunition. Further, she wrote that even if it did, Oregon’s new statute restricting them is “consistent with the Nation’s history and tradition of firearm regulation.”
She found that, although the Second Amendment protects Americans’ rights to self-defense within the home and elsewhere, these large capacity magazines are not generally used for self-defense and thus are not protected.
The new Oregon law also requires that a citizen be fingerprinted, pass a background check, complete a firearms safety course and pay a fee to the state before obtaining a permit to purchase a weapon.
Immergut reviewed this mandate and determined that it does not violate the Second Amendment. She ruled that the requirement consists of “the kind of narrow, objective criteria” demanded by the high court.
This obviously does not sit well with gun rights advocates. They believe that the new law gives far too much leeway to local sheriffs and police departments to ascertain an applicant’s mental health. Further, they assert it places a subjective standard between a law-abiding citizen and their exercising of Second Amendment rights.
Under the law, authorities may reject a permit application if they believe the person is “reasonably likely to be a danger to self or others or to the community.”
Oregon is simply another in a lengthening line of states attempting to circumvent the Supreme Court’s guidance and punish lawful gun owners for the acts of violent criminals. It is hoped that the 9th Circuit will see through this unnecessary action and rule in favor of individual rights.
