An Oregon state court judge placed a hold on the state’s strict new voter-approved gun control measure late Tuesday, only hours after a federal court judge allowed a ban on the sale and transfer of high-capacity magazines to go into effect.
Now, Harney County Judge Robert Raschio’s ruling muddies the waters on the implementation of Measure 114, which was set to go into effect Thursday. Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum vowed to appeal the matter straight to the state Supreme Court, according to a tweet posted Tuesday.
“What’s next? We will petition to the Oregon Supreme Court ASAP, seeking to align the result in our state courts with the federal court’s well-reasoned and thoughtful decision,” Rosenblum said.
FEDERAL JUDGE RULES OREGON GUN CONTROL CAN MOVE AHEAD, STATE JUDGE SAYS NO
The lawsuit that landed in Harney Country was filed by gun rights organizations, including Gun Owners of America, the Gun Owners Foundation, and several other independent gun owners, who want the law placed on hold while its constitutionality is being determined in litigation.
Notably, the state lawsuit against the voter-backed measure makes its arguments under the state constitution rather than the U.S. Constitution, meaning that the state judge’s ruling is binding in the entire state for now.
Hours before Raschio’s reversal, a Portland-based federal judge handed a victory to proponents of Measure 114, which was narrowly approved by state voters last month, passing with 50.7% support.
U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut’s ruling allowed the ban on the sale and transfer of high-capacity magazines to go into effect Thursday while also granting a 30-day gap before the law’s permit-to-purchase mandate goes into effect.
“The evidentiary record also shows that large-capacity magazines are disproportionately used in crimes involving mass shootings,” Immergut wrote, adding that plaintiffs failed to show how magazines holding over 10 rounds are “arms” protected by the Second Amendment.
The voter-approved measure requires fingerprinting and training courses for new firearms buyers as well as a criminal background check. Additionally, it bars the sale, import, or transfer of gun magazines with more than 10 rounds unless they are owned by law enforcement or military members or were possessed before the measure’s approval.
For existing high-capacity magazine owners, they can only be used on personal property or at a firing range, shooting competitions, or for hunting as allowed by state law after the measure goes into effect.
The law does not require a permit for receiving firearms as gifts or if they are passed from another private owner to someone who is 18 or older.
A landmark Supreme Court ruling from June that altered the standard by which gun laws are evaluated was frequently brought up during the federal court proceedings. In the 5-4 New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen opinion, the justices held that any gun ownership restrictions must have a basis rooted in U.S. tradition dating back to the ratification of the Second Amendment.
The high court ruling also dealt a blow to gun permitting requirements, meaning such requirements cannot force an applicant to justify a need for a gun.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
“Measure 114′s permit-to-purchase scheme is a ‘shall-issue’ permit scheme based on objective standards and is therefore presumptively constitutional under the holding of Bruen,” Immergut wrote in her opinion, citing the summer decision as a means to defend the voter-backed measure.
Immergut’s decision also applies to an additional lawsuit challenging the magazine ban. There are presently four federal lawsuits challenging Measure 114.
