Harney County judge calls police, sheriffs’ testimony on number of rounds they carry ‘highly relevant’ for Measure 114 trial

Although police are exempt from Measure 114′s gun control restrictions, Harney County Circuit Judge Robert S. Raschio ruled Wednesday that testimony from law enforcement about the number of rounds they use for self defense is relevant for his judgment on whether Oregon’s gun control Measure 114 violates the state constitution.

Raschio said he was partly swayed by a “friend of the court” brief that the National Police Association had filed with the Oregon Supreme Court in late January in support of the Harney County gun owners’ challenge to the Oregon gun control measure.

The judge read a passage from the association’s 50-page brief, to explain his ruling:

“It reads, ‘Because police officers are defending themselves against the same criminals as citizens, their experience is highly relevant to the appropriate scope of self- defense. Over the years, police departments across the nation have abandoned service revolvers in favor of modern semi-automatic weapons with larger magazines. This is true even though police are often working together as a group, with even less need for higher capacity magazines than individual citizens attempting to defend themselves.’”

Raschio said that he agrees that what police use for self defense is “highly relevant,” and will allow the testimony from Oregon State Police Supt. Casey Codding and two sheriffs from Union and Harney counties, who took the witness stand a day earlier, to be considered.

The issue before Raschio is whether the measure’s regulations are lawful under Article 1, Sec. 27 of the Oregon Constitution, which establishes a right to bear arms.

Lawyers for the state defending the measure had strongly objected to the law enforcement testimony, calling it irrelevant since police officers and sheriffs are exempt from the measure’s restriction on magazine capacity.

The head of the state police and the two rural county sheriffs each testified that they and their officers carry duty-issued handguns or rifles with magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

State troopers, for example, carry a 17-round magazine and one round in the chamber of their 9mm handguns, and carry two additional 17-round magazines.

The county sheriffs testified they prefer large-capacity magazines in their firearms when they encounter wolves, coyotes or even bears in their rural communities, and want their local residents to be able to carry large-capacity magazines in case they need to confront a suspect before a deputy arrives at a scene. Union County Sheriff Cody Bowen said it sometimes takes his deputies 15 to 20 minutes to respond to a 911 call.

The gun owners completed their case Wednesday morning.

They also had called gunsmith Scott Springer, owner of Redmond’s Springer Precision, who testified about the mechanics of gun magazines in pistols, rifles and shotguns.

Through video exhibits, he demonstrated how easy it is to extend magazine capacity with a drill. In one video, he used a drill to remove so-called “dimples” in a magazine that limit the number of rounds that can be inserted into a pistol and turned a typical 10-round magazine into one that could hold 17 bullets. Altering the magazine could impact the function, Springer testified.

The gun owners argue that the measure’s language makes any magazine that “can be readily restored, changed or converted” to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition unlawful.

Through Springer’s testimony, the gun owners intended to show that an ordinary person with no training using regular household tools can easily alter magazines to hold more than 10 rounds.

Attorney Tony L. Aiello Jr., who represents the two Harney County gun owners who filed the suit challenging the voter-approved measure, has argued that the measure also would make unlawful many shotguns, which can hold more than 10 so-called mini-shells that each are about 1.75-inches long.

It would also restrict the “vast majority” of detachable magazines that typically come with what’s called a “removable base plate” and can accept a magazine extension to increase bullet capacity, he said.
Lawyers for the state have argued that large-capacity magazines are not a firearm but an accessory. But even if they were considered firearms, they were not in common use for self-defense at the founding of the state, the state’s lawyers have argued.

The state began its case Wednesday afternoon, and another dispute over the relevance of a witness soon arose.

Joseph Paterno, a congregant of Portland’s Augustana Lutheran Church and one of the signature-gatherers involved in the Lift Every Voice Oregon campaign, was called by the state to testify how the grass-roots initiative process led to Ballot Measure 114.

Aiello argued that Paterno’s testimony is outside the scope of the judge’s text-based examination of the gun control measure. He said the judge could consider the measure’s preamble and what was written in the voter’s pamphlet but not consider testimony from Paterno about recent mass shootings that motivated the initiative process.

“I don’t understand how any of this testimony goes to this court determining the facial constitutionality of the law,” Aiello said.

Oregon Assistant Attorney General Brian Marshall countered that Paterno’s testimony will be about the legislative history and show the measure’s “public safety purpose.”

“This measure would have never passed had he not led an effort to collect the signatures,” which triggered the legislative process, Marshall said.

Raschio said he found “it surprising that this is the approach being taken,” by the state. Without reviewing the case law, the judge said he considered the legislative history to be limited to the text of a measure, its preamble and the voter’s pamphlet and considered Paterno’s testimony to be “an expansion” of that rule.

“I appreciate the work that he did. I appreciate citizen engagement. It’s very important to our society,” Raschio said.

But he added, “I’m trying to understand how this testimony gets me any closer to understanding the text and context of Ballot Measure 114.”

Marshall said the citizen, volunteer-led initiative was in response to a particular set of events in the nation and is part of the legislative history that should be before the court.

Raschio said he’d review the case law and decide later, while allowing Paterno, who traveled to Burns from Portland, to answer the lawyers’ questions. Paterno is expected to return to the stand Thursday morning.