{"id":93298,"date":"2023-05-31T14:29:19","date_gmt":"2023-05-31T19:29:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=93298"},"modified":"2023-05-31T14:29:19","modified_gmt":"2023-05-31T19:29:19","slug":"93298","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=93298","title":{"rendered":""},"content":{"rendered":"

Oregon’s magazine ban, pistol purchase permitting scheme set for trial<\/a><\/p>\n

Oregon\u2019s narrowly-approved Measure 114 has been on hold for the past several months thanks to a circuit court judge\u2019s injunction, but a separate federal lawsuit is set to go to trial next week, and gun owners are hoping that the ballot initiative will be struck down entirely by the courts.<\/p>\n

U.S. District Judge Karen Immergut\u00a0declined to issue a temporary restraining order<\/a>\u00a0of her own shortly after the law was approved by less than 51% of voters last November, ruling that the magazine ban was presumptively constitutional on the theory that the magazines aren\u2019t likely protected by the Second Amendment in the first place, but even if they are, banning them is okay because its meant to address \u201cunprecedented societal concerns\u201d about mass shootings. Now she\u2019s set to\u00a0preside over a five-day trial<\/a>\u00a0that will delve more deeply into the constitutional questions surrounding Measure 114\u2019s ban on commonly-owned magazines, with the state of Oregon and Measure 114\u2019s defenders arguing that the bans are a life-saving necessity and opponents maintaining that the ban is a violation of our fundamental right to armed self-defense.<\/p>\n

Immergut last week denied each side\u2019s motions to rule in their favor without a trial.<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cThe record contains genuine disputes of material fact, which would benefit from full development through trial,\u201d she wrote.<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

She said she\u2019ll consider whether large-capacity magazines \u201cconstitute a dramatic technological change from earlier firearms capable of firing more than 10 rounds.\u201d<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Immergut also noted that she\u2019ll take up the constitutionality of the gun permit requirement under Measure 114, but she likely won\u2019t consider how it will be applied in reaching her opinion.<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Measure challengers contend the permits will deprive law-abiding citizens of guns because state police haven\u2019t yet hired sufficient staff to handle the anticipated increase in background checks required to obtain a permit.<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cEvidence about future implementation is not ripe for determination in this trial,\u201d Immergut said.<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Based on Immergut\u2019s previous ruling, it seems pretty clear that she\u2019s looking for ways to justify the ban, and as Reason\u2019s Jacob Sullum\u00a0noted shortly<\/a>\u00a0after she declined to issue a TRO, she seems willing to twist the words of the Supreme Court in order to do so.<\/p>\n

The FPC cites a couple of real-life cases that suggest magazine capacity can be crucial in fending off armed home invaders. More generally, it notes that shots fired in self-defense often miss their target, even when fired by trained police officers. Measure 114\u2019s exemption for police officers recognizes that fact, the FPC says, and \u201cthe average Oregon citizen has just as much right as a police officer to defend herself with standard capacity magazines.\u201d<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

For Immergut, however, the crucial point is that situations where Oregon\u2019s magazine limit would impair self-defense are \u201cexceedingly rare.\u201d In effect, she is suggesting that arms are not covered by the Second Amendment unless the government agrees that they are \u201cnecessary\u201d\u2014and not for \u201clawful purposes\u201d generally but for self-defense in particular.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Immergut even questions whether \u201clarge capacity magazines\u201d are \u201cin common use\u201d for \u201clawful purposes,\u201d which seems undeniable given how many law-abiding Americans own them. \u201cPlaintiffs have not shown that magazines capable of accepting more than ten rounds of ammunition are firearms in \u2018\u201dcommon use\u201d today for self-defense\u2019 and thereby covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment,\u201d she writes.<\/strong><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The Supreme Court has said that the central component of the Second Amendment is self-defense, but nothing in\u00a0Heller<\/em>,\u00a0McDonald<\/em>, or\u00a0Bruen\u00a0<\/em>suggests that only arms that are in common use for self-defense are protected. If so, that would set up a bizarre standard that would allow for single shot bolt action hunting rifles to be banned, while protecting the handguns that were the primary target of gun control activists for decades.<\/p>\n

While self-defense may be at the heart of the Second Amendment, the text plainly (and simply) refers to the right to keep and bear arms. Unless the state of Oregon can come up with longstanding historical analogues to banning commonly-owned arms (which they\u2019ve so far been able to do), the state\u2019s ban\u00a0should\u00a0<\/em>be overturned by Immergut. I\u2019m not all that confident the judge will apply the\u00a0Bruen\u00a0<\/em>test appropriately and fairly, especially given her initial opinion, but unless she\u2019s engaging in some anti-gun activism from the bench it shouldn\u2019t be a close call to find in favor of the plaintiffs when the trial concludes next week.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Oregon’s magazine ban, pistol purchase permitting scheme set for trial Oregon\u2019s narrowly-approved Measure 114 has been on hold for the past several months thanks to a circuit court judge\u2019s injunction, but a separate federal lawsuit is set to go to trial next week, and gun owners are hoping that the ballot initiative will be struck … 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":[23,11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-93298","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-courts","category-crap-for-brains","category-rkba"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/93298","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=93298"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/93298\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":93299,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/93298\/revisions\/93299"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=93298"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=93298"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=93298"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}