An in depth and surprisingly ‘even handed’ look at the new Oregon gun control law.<\/p>\n
Can the lawsuit trying to block Oregon\u2019s new gun laws actually succeed?<\/a><\/p>\n PORTLAND, Ore. (KGW) \u2014 While votes were still being counted after Election Day this month \u2014 and well beyond \u2014 the fact that gun control initiative Measure 114 was\u00a0projected to narrowly pass<\/a>\u00a0proved enough for some of Oregon\u2019s arcane administrative mechanics to begin churning.<\/p>\n According to the Secretary of State\u2019s office, laws passed via initiative petition like this one go into effect precisely one month after the election: midnight on Thursday, Dec. 8. Even the authors of Measure 114 said that they thought it would become effective a month after the vote was certified.<\/p>\n When and if Measure 114 becomes law in its current form, it would require a permit in order to buy a gun. Buyers would have to get a permit that\u2019s expected to cost around $65 and complete an approved firearms safety course, which would also likely come at a cost. The permits also require submission of a photo ID, fingerprinting and a criminal background check.<\/p>\n Permit applications would be handled by the local police department or county sheriff\u2019s office, and Oregon State Police would handle background checks \u2014 which they already do for firearms purchases. All of that information would then go into a database.<\/p>\n Measure 114 also bans the sale of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.<\/p>\n Immediately after the measure passed, a few Oregon sheriffs released statements about their feelings on the matter. Most were critical of the measure, but a few took that a step further and said that they refused to enforce certain aspects of it \u2014 also expressing hopes that a lawsuit would block the law before it could go into effect.<\/p>\n The short timeline between Election Day and the Dec. 8 effective date meant that an inevitable legal challenge to Measure 114 would need to coalesce quickly. And it did,\u00a0less than two weeks after the election.<\/a><\/p>\n On Friday, a Marion County gun store owner, the Sherman County Sheriff and a group called the Oregon Firearms Federation filed a lawsuit. It argues that the new law violates the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, taking special aim at the magazine capacity portion of the law.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u201cMany of the nation\u2019s best-selling handguns and rifles come standard with magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds \u2014 and firearms equipped with such magazines are safely possessed by law-abiding citizens in the vast majority of states,\u201d the plaintiffs\u2019 attorneys wrote in the filing documents.<\/p>\n \u201cThe reason for the popularity of these magazines is that in a confrontation with a violent attacker, having enough ammunition can be the difference between life and death,\u201d they continue. \u201cBanning magazines over 10 rounds is no more likely to reduce criminal abuse of guns then banning high horsepower engines is likely to reduce criminal abuse of automobiles.\u201d<\/p>\n KGW wanted to know how likely the lawsuit is to be successful, so we turned to a constitutional law professor, Norman Williams of Willamette University. Williams said he\u2019s not surprised that the lawsuit focused on magazine capacity.<\/p>\n \u201cBoth California and Washington have similarly banned high-capacity magazines, and the California ban was initially upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit as not violating the Second Amendment,\u201d Williams said. \u201cThat decision, which was a year ago, was then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court, this past June, struck down a New York public carry law, and after deciding the New York case, the U.S. vacated the 9th Circuit\u2019s decision upholding California\u2019s ban and sent it back to the Court of Appeals to decide again in light of what the U.S. Supreme Court had said about Second Amendment gun rights.\u201d<\/p>\n In layman\u2019s terms: A lower court initially ruled that California could ban high-capacity magazines, like Oregon just did. But then the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a New York gun law case, and the justices decided that this ruling could apply to the California case as well, so they instructed the lower court to take another look at California\u2019s law in light of the New York ruling.<\/p>\n The New York case in question is New York State Rifle Association vs. Bruen, and the Measure 114 lawsuit makes reference to that decision. The case is a bit different than what\u2019s going into effect here in Oregon. It centers around a law that forced people applying for a concealed carry permit to show that they had \u201ccause,\u201d or some kind of justifiable need to carry a gun.<\/p>\n The Supreme Court ruled that no other constitutional right requires someone to show \u201cspecial need\u201d in order to exercise it \u2014 and further, that gun restrictions are constitutional only if there is a historical tradition of that regulation in the U.S. And when they say \u201chistorical,\u201d they don\u2019t mean regulations that came about since the beginning of the 20th Century.<\/p>\n \u201cThe U.S. Supreme Court decision in New York vs. Bruen adopted a new methodology for deciding the scope of Second Amendment gun rights,\u201d Williams said. \u201cThe U.S. Supreme Court was emphatic that for a measure to pass constitutional review, proponents of the gun regulation would have to demonstrate that in 1791, similar measures were in existence, that the right to bear a firearm in 1791 wouldn\u2019t have been viewed as infringed by that same type of measure.<\/p>\n \u201cAnd as the dissenting judges in the 9th Circuit decision had said a year ago, it was clear that in 1791, there were no bans on high-capacity magazines \u2014 that gun regulations in 1791, when the Second Amendment was adopted, permitted individuals to have firearms that were able to fire multiple rounds in a short period of time. And so in light of that very historically-rooted approach to assessing gun rights, I think it\u2019s going to be very difficult for Oregon, California, Washington and other states to be able to survive a Second Amendment challenge to a ban on high-capacity magazines.\u201d<\/p>\n If Williams is right, then the Measure 114 ban on high-capacity magazines could be in trouble. However, he does think that other portions of the law, the ones that require permits and firearms safety training, have a chance of holding up in court.<\/p>\n \u201cOregon\u2019s permit requirements are not all that different from other states,\u201d Williams said. \u201cThe most significant addition Oregon made is the requirement that you be fingerprinted as part of the permit application. But a number of other types of professions here in Oregon are subject to similar fingerprinting requirements \u2014 every Oregon attorney, for instance, has to be fingerprinted before they are admitted to the practice of law. And so it\u2019s a procedural burden, but it\u2019s one that I don\u2019t think is going to prevent many law-abiding individuals from being able to obtain a permit.<\/p>\n \u201cSimilarly, the requirement that gun owners, permit applicants, receive training \u2026 already a number of firearm owners go through that. Measure 114 provides that if you\u2019ve already gone through the training, you don\u2019t have to go through it again, if the training you went through meets the standards set by law enforcement. And so while I understand that opponents of the measure like to say this is going to make it really difficult to purchase firearms in Oregon, I do think that is, that objection is overstated.\u201d<\/p>\n The lawsuit also argues that the measure puts a huge burden on state police, local police departments and local sheriff\u2019s offices to implement it quickly, within the space of a month. The suit points to the Oregon Constitution, which requires that new local government programs receive funding from the state if they are being required by the legislature or state agencies. Measure 114 didn\u2019t bring with it any revenue sources for new programs.<\/p>\n KGW reached out to Oregon State Police for comment on this, but they said that they aren\u2019t ready to get into it right now:<\/p>\n \u201cOSP is working diligently to ensure we are prepared for implementing our portion of BM114 by December 8, 2022. At this time our team is still working on that process and we will communicate it to the public as soon as we are able.\u201d<\/p>\n Professor Williams said he believes the court will likely put an injunction on Measure 114, pausing it from taking effect, at least until the permitting and training process can be put into place.<\/p>\n Opponents of the measure say they have many more concerns with the law, including big picture issues. We talked with the Oregon Hunters Association, and they said they don\u2019t see how the new law will stop gun violence, and the conversation about guns needs to be much broader.<\/p>\n \u201cI was raised in a family where firearms were around, and so they weren\u2019t something that was frightening to me. And I took a lot of pride in being proficient in them,\u201d said Amy Patrick with the Oregon Hunters Association. \u201cAnd so I\u2019m very used to them, I\u2019m very used to handling them, and so for me, it\u2019s not a scary thing. Whereas I understand somebody who has not been raised around them, has seen them only as a tool for violence, has a very different approach and comfort level with them.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cAnd so I think what you said before about people felt like they needed to do something, that is spot on. And I understand, people do feel like they need to do something to feel safer, something to try to take steps against the violence that we\u2019re seeing the uptick, particularly in the metro areas. The unfortunate thing for me is that I think there\u2019s been a lot of misplaced trust put in this measure as that something.\u201d<\/p>\n Meanwhile, the chief petitioner of Measure 114, a pastor in Northeast Portland, told us \u201cenough is enough\u201d \u2014 he\u2019s seen and heard from too many people affected by gun violence to stand back and do nothing.<\/p>\n \u201cThe key is for all of us, all of us is that this was put on the ballot for the sake of our children,\u201d said Rev. W.J. Mark Knutson, pastor of Augustana Lutheran Church in Portland. \u201cThe number one cause of death in this country for children and youth is gun violence, 55,000 Americans a year. In Oregon it\u2019s gone up.<\/p>\n \u201cAnd so this was put on there for public health, and all of us want to see public health \u2014 and it\u2019s not just our children who are fearful of being shot but the impact it has to them emotionally and mentally, if they\u2019re close to one or know about one, the impact it has on them spiritually, and the impact it has on them in their social fabric. So this is about public safety, safe schools, safe communities and it\u2019s been proven to save lives. This is well put together, it\u2019s going to save lives, and that\u2019s it. All of us want that and when it becomes law, I would expect everyone to uphold that and work with it to make Oregon even safer.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" An in depth and surprisingly ‘even handed’ look at the new Oregon gun control law. Can the lawsuit trying to block Oregon\u2019s new gun laws actually succeed? PORTLAND, Ore. (KGW) \u2014 While votes were still being counted after Election Day this month \u2014 and well beyond \u2014 the fact that gun control initiative Measure 114 … Continue reading “”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[23,5,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-88069","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-courts","category-politics","category-rkba"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/88069","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=88069"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/88069\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":88071,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/88069\/revisions\/88071"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=88069"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=88069"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=88069"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}No \u201cspecial need\u201d<\/h2>\n
The permitting process<\/h2>\n
An ongoing debate<\/h2>\n