A judge with common sense. I love it.
Harney County Circuit Court Judge Robert S. Raschio ruled that Measure 114, a strict gun law, violates the state’s constitution.
The lawsuit mentioned the state’s constitution since it has different aspects than the U.S. Constitution.
Measure 114 “requires a permit to purchase any gun, bans the sale of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds and has been called ‘the nation’s most extreme gun control Initiative’ by groups like the NRA’s legislative arm.”
The law passed last year by only 50.65% last year. Only six of Oregon’s 36 counties supported it.
Raschio pointed to Article 1, Section 27 of the Oregon constitution: “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.”
First and foremost, the 30-day delay violates a person’s right to bear arms because the citizens cannot defend themselves during that time period.
The court found that the “reasonable grounds” review in 114 does not fit the constitutional standard set in another case.
Raschio also wrote that Measure 114 is unduly burdensome because it flips “the burden of proof, requiring citizens to prove they are more dangerous, rather than the state meeting the intermediate scrutiny standard proving a citizen is too dangerous to own a firearm.”
The court also pointed out that Measure 114’s requirement that a citizen must go through a “judicial review, without any other reason than the state cannot meet the requirements of the law, is unduly burdensome on their right to bear arms as it requires all Oregonians to prove they are safe to possess a firearm.”
That part of Measure 114 flips “the current protections of the right to bear arms on its head.”
Raschio then wrote the ban on large capacity magazines is unconstitutional because the constitution protects the magazines and all of a firearm’s components
“There is no historical basis for limiting the size and capacity of firearms, including their magazines,” wrote Raschio.
Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum insisted Raschio was wrong.
“Worse, it needlessly puts Oregonians’ lives at risk,” whined Rosenblum. “The state will file an appeal and we believe we will prevail.”
That’s odd because Raschio ruled that the measure places people in danger because it denies you the ability to defend yourself during the 30-day waiting period.
Rosenblum’s experts described the latest technology of guns as “profound ruptures in the history of firearms technology” because there is no way anyone in the past “could have predicted the emergence of smokeless powder, detachable cartridges, automatic reloading.”
The plaintiffs had a stellar witness who shot down (pun intended) the other so-called experts:
But Ashley Hlebinsky, a former firearm museum curator, testified for the plaintiffs that many early guns could fire multiple rounds and that some models with magazine-style devices existed around the time Oregon became a state.
Raschio ruled that large capacity magazines were available in the early 1800s and that gunsmiths were actively trying to improve upon the technology.
“The idea that Oregon’s pioneers intended to freeze the firearm technology accessible by Oregonians to antiques is ridiculous on its face,” Aiello told Fox News on Wednesday. “If there is any evidence of such an intention, Defendants certainly did not present any of it at trial.”
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.