Court Ruling Delays Oregon’s New Firearms Restrictions 10 More Days
Harney County circuit judge extends temporary restraining order on Ballot Measure 114
Both sides in the fight over Oregon’s Ballot Measure 114 have until Dec. 23 to prepare their cases on why the measure’s new restrictions on firearms purchases and ownership should, or should not, be implemented.
Walter Smoloski, a spokesman for Gun Owners of America (GOA), one party suing to block the new law, confirmed the report on Dec. 13.
According to Smoloski, Harney County Circuit Judge Robert Raschio, extended a temporary restraining order he issued on Dec. 6 by 10 days.
Raschio had granted a request to stay a federal court order to implement the law after Harney County residents Joseph Arnold, Cliff Asmussen, the GOA, and the Gun Owner’s Foundation sued.
Passed on Narrow Vote
The measure passed on a vote of 975,553 for 50.65 percent of the vote to 950,589, or 49.35 percent, in November’s midterm election.
Measure 114 requires a permit to purchase a firearm, a completed background check, and certification that the permit applicant has passed an approved safety course.
The law also requires the state police to compile a firearms database and prohibits magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
Knutson said these measures have improved safety and passed constitutional muster in other states.
Since the election, Measure 114 has been mired in court, facing multiple lawsuits.
The Oregon State Police, tasked with implementing the permit and training requirements and enforcing a ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, had asked a judge to delay the law’s enactment.
The police said they had no process for issuing permits at the time.
Critics of the law, including several county sheriffs say elements such as the magazine capacity ban and the firearms database have already been ruled unconstitutional.
On Dec. 2, Gun Owners of America (GOA), the Gun Owner’s Foundation, Gliss Asmussen, and Joseph Arnold sued in Harney County Circuit Court to block the law because it violates the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment.
Supreme Court declined case
On Dec. 7, the Oregon Supreme Court declined to hear the case, so the law will now make its way through the state and federal court systems.
Supporters of the law say they pushed for the measure in response to recent mass shootings. They claim the law will prevent future bloodshed.
Opponents claim there is little to no evidence to support those claims, and the law violates the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens while leaving the way clear for criminals to continue victimizing their neighbors.