Oregon measure 114 deemed constitutional

[Csinn]

Appeals Court Lifts Hold on Measure 114, Ruling that Oregon Gun Law is Constitutional - Oregon Department of Justice

AG Rayfield: “Oregonians voted for this, and it’s time we move ahead with common sense safety measures.” Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield issued a statement today, after an appeals court lifted the hold on Measure 114, a step forward in allowing the state to put critical gun safety...

www.doj.state.or.us

Wow my state is on fire these days for stupid moves.

 

[Gordon]

The worst news ever in this year. Oh well, I've got all mine and am not buying any more, and all my family is covered forever. Too bad I can't curse on this forum or say how I feel about the Oregon Democratic party.

 

[Csinn]

I wonder if it’ll go to the federal Supreme Court. Apparently it doesn’t go into effect for 35 days in case the Oregon Supreme Court wants to take it up. I’m sure lawsuits will be brought

 

[LiveLife]

Too bad I can't curse on this forum or say how I feel about the Oregon Democratic party.

Sure you can ...

That's how I feel about the ruling ... Likely it will be appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court ... "Procedural rules give the challengers 35 days to seek further appellate review of the decision"

I wonder if ... the Oregon Supreme Court wants to take it up

Lead counsel Tony Aiello, Jr., a senior associate at Tyler Smith & Associates, P.C., “We intend to appeal this ruling to the Oregon Supreme Court" - https://www.opb.org/article/2025/03...ms-ammunition-permit-safety-background-check/

 

[Gordon]

Sure you can ...

That's how I feel about the ruling ... Likely it will be appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court ... "Procedural rules give the challengers 35 days to seek further appellate review of the decision"

Thanks my brother, Im going to sleep better by your words of encouragement.

 

[LiveLife]

Thanks my brother, Im going to sleep better by your words of encouragement.

Really hoping for Greater Idaho movement to gain real traction for both of us ...

 

[Bazoo]

I'm sorry to hear it. I would be most concerned about that background check thing. It's common for folks to get delayed. The local sheriff of the next county over gets/got delayed every time.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Well...to be completely fair, the decision was based on the STATE constitution, which apparently the law suit revolved around. Not the federal constitution.

Article I, Bill of Rights, Secion 27:

Section 27. Right to bear arms; military subordinate to civil power. The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence [sic] of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.]

Bills and Laws OrConst

www.oregonlegislature.gov

Note the verbiage is not the same as that of the federal Constitution:

Second Amendment
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Bill of Rights, U.S. Constitution, constitutional amendments, civil liberties, American history, individual rights, legal protections

The Bill of Rights is a founding documents written by James Madison. It makes up the first ten amendments to the Constitution including freedom of speech and due process.

billofrightsinstitute.org

Like it or not, the Oregon does not contain verbiage which says anything on the order of "shall not be infringed", from which we derive the limitations which are placed on the federal government.

Rather, it simply says the people shall have the right to bear arms, and for defense of themselves and the state. The caveat included is that the military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power...which, in context to bearing arms in the same sentence, implies if those arms are used in defense of the state.

There's nothing whatsoever in there which says the state cannot impose other conditions, restrictions, or limitations. "Infringements", as we like to call them with respect to the Second Amendment RKBA.


HOWEVER...this is a double edged sword. The simple statement "the people SHALL have the right to bear arms for the defense of themselves" could potentially be interpreted in the courts as including felons. That would be an interesting battle, properly fought and with the right people being defended in court. For example, people convicted of non-violent felonies who are denied their RKBA. Why should they be denied this right?

 

[rust collector]

Please link to opinions rather than articles. Articles are other people's version of events. The opinion illustrates the court's mindset.
https://www.doj.state.or.us/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/COA-opinion.pdf

If you read the 25-page opinion, you see that the court decided to disregard the facts stipulated by the parties below and to base its conclusion on "reasonableness". It doesn't take a lot of imagination to see where things go from there. If bad facts make bad law, disregarding facts removes constraints on judicial authority and the court has carte blanche to rule as it desires rather than as the factscape requires.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Measure 114 is interesting in the three things it stipulates:

1. You must have a permit to purchase a firearm.
2. You must pass completion of background check AT THE POINT OF TRANSFER.
3. 10 round limit on magazines.

Measure 114 pdf:

https://www.oregon.gov/osp/Docs/Ballot%20Measure%20114.pdf

Looking at the verbiage of Measure 114, it seems like you have to pass TWO background checks, not just one. The first is part of the requirements which need to be met to be issued a permit to purchase a firearm. (And those requirements are subjective in nature for some portions.) The second is required again at the point of transfer.

There's a whole lotta horse pucky going on with this Measure.

HOWEVER...there is the possibility that it can be further challenged in the courts, since the Second Amendment was finally incorporated against the states.

 

[vintovka]

Again stupidity reigns. Not too hard to predict huge increases in gun and magazine sales (again) and a real effort to remove the govenor and all Democrats from office.

 

[mm93]

Oregon Supreme court may or may not rule on this. They might decide to just let the lower court ruling stand, so at that point it would need to go to the US Supreme Court, and see if they'll look at it and make a ruling. So for now it seems it will be a big mess, and severely restrict firearms sales on anything Measure 114 covers. It's likely it will take years for people to get permits and training required to apply for a permit. Sheriff's offices will be overwhelmed doing permits, and gun owners will be saddled with another big fee to obtain permits. In the meantime gun sales will drop to zero waiting for this to all get sorted out.

 

[vintovka]

In the meantime (LEGAL) gun sales will drop to zero waiting for this to all get sorted out.

 

[LiveLife]

In the meantime (LEGAL) gun sales will drop to zero waiting for this to all get sorted out.

Essentially all Oregonian friends and their neighbors I know (Including my parents) already bought their guns/magazines.

 

[jmorris]

Essentially all Oregonian friends and their neighbors I know (Including my parents) already bought their guns/magazines.

When you ban something, hasn’t everyone that’s going to legally buy them, already bought them?

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Oregon Supreme court may or may not rule on this. They might decide to just let the lower court ruling stand, so at that point it would need to go to the US Supreme Court, and see if they'll look at it and make a ruling. So for now it seems it will be a big mess, and severely restrict firearms sales on anything Measure 114 covers. It's likely it will take years for people to get permits and training required to apply for a permit. Sheriff's offices will be overwhelmed doing permits, and gun owners will be saddled with another big fee to obtain permits. In the meantime gun sales will drop to zero waiting for this to all get sorted out.

One sticking point is putting a dollar cost to exercising what's been declared to be a "right", by both the state and the federal governments.

And that's on top of all the OTHER requirements they have placed on exercising this right.

 

[mm93]

There's nothing constitutionally "right" about putting financial burdens on firearms purchases. I think most people can afford whatever the stupid permit cost will be, but there are those less fortunate who are a bit strapped financially and have the right to keep and bear arms, but not if the state adds financial burdens on them they can't meet.
I wouldn't be taking food off the table, but there are those who are less fortunate, and shouldn't be paying for a permit to allow them to purchase a firearm.

 

[PapaG]

So, you’re becoming Illinois II.

 

[Old Dog]

Washington state has the exact same bill in the legislature right now, except we already had a magazine capacity restriction.

 

[JohnB-40]

Essentially all Oregonian friends and their neighbors I know (Including my parents) already bought their guns/magazines.

I saw this one coming,I knew they would never give up. I bought my last firearm I wanted last week,a Marlin 1894. The safe is full,the needed mags (including purchase receipts) are stored The Portland area basically controls the whole rest of the state. Therefor I'm not playing anymore.

 

[billybob44]

My take on this:
None of these rules/suggestions/laws will prevent a criminal from doing things against CURRENT Law.
Hardly anything here to prevent Little Johnny/Mary from being injured.
These are meant to RULE the Middle-of-the-road people, who are neither for or against firearms.

These are to make the Drama Queens/Kings FEEL good about themselves...Bill.

 

[PapaG]

Constitutional! Not by a court that is lib dominated. Just like Illinois! Almost nothing in this state is constitutional. Waiting, hopefully, on SCOTUS!

 

[Gordon]

One sticking point is putting a dollar cost to exercising what's been declared to be a "right", by both the state and the federal governments.

And that's on top of all the OTHER requirements they have placed on exercising this right.

More over the lengthyy period of inability to purchase a firearm violates the 2nd amendment pure and simple,
if any Court gives a deadline to perform. The required training won't be up and running for a year, at least.

 

[Gordon]

So, you’re becoming Illinois II.

I was chased out of NJ in 1971 by its draconian Firearm laws, which started in 1964 and went downhill fast. Went to California in 1972 and lived very rurally until 1980, but by 1986, firearm laws headed into the toilet in an accelerating manner, and I escaped the Homestead I built up over 40 years in 2017 when I wanted to spend my retirement in a free state with NFA toys. I went to a no-sales-tax, NFA-friendly rural Oregon and became a happy resident near my two sons in 2018, thinking I would be in Paradise. In 2020, the republicans were in the Minority, and socialist anarchist craziness took over the Portland area. The super majority of Democrats started hating the Citizens for having all those firearms to resist.
And here we are after they use our tax dollars to enslave us for some liberal fantasies while Portland goes into the toilet.
My best friend and shooting partner, a Dentist my age, retired from California to his family's homestead he inherited outside Spokane in 2018. He got shafted like I did

 

[Frank Ettin]

Not really a discussion for the Legal Forum.