Judge Rules Oregon Gun Control Law Violates the State Constitution
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.”
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Good
First they came for your guns, then they came for your freedom.
Proof?
1. Venezuela
2. Nazi Germany
3. Just about anywhere in Asia
The left coast.
Portland competing with SF to be the HOMELESS JUNKIE capitol of america.
Other judges in the country have ruled that magazines, as feeding devices, are not protected under 2A. As long as a single round can be manually loaded and fired, no magazine is needed and so not protected. I find that something the newspapers should be up in “arms” about but not. Ink wells and paper holders are “feeding devices” and this would return the print news to single stage presses circa Ben Franklin.
1984 is becoming a feel good novel about better times.
It’s always interesting how ‘journalists’ using a keyboard to create their usually anti 2A work, email the work to an editor who approves it digitally for publication on line do so unironically. They use tech that didn’t exist at the founding, hell they type it, a process which didn’t exist either.
The operative word isn’t gun it’s control. Biggest mass murderers throughout history has been governments.
“Other judges in the country” are wrong per recent SCOTUS rulings.
Their ruling against magazines flies in the face of the Bruen decision.
The very newest weaselment is a judge who ruled that neither keep nor bear includes buy.
I just finished reading Judge Raschio’s opinion.
When Judge Raschio granted the temporary injunction against the law back in January, the Oregon Supreme Court had the opportunity to and did not stay the injunction, despite the Court’s leftist leanings. In order for the Court to reverse this case, it will have to essentially overrule decades of its own jurisprudence. I doubt that it will.
“Raschio also wrote that Measure 114 is unduly burdensome because it flips “the burden of proof, requiring citizens to prove they are more dangerous…”
Um… he wrote “not dangerous,” which makes a heck of a lot more sense.
That had me scratching my head, too. Maybe “more dangerous” meant a citizen had to prove that his hands were licensed as lethal weapons in 14 States
“…no way anyone in the past “could have predicted the emergence of smokeless powder, detachable cartridges, automatic reloading.”
Strange statement in support of the gun ban made by the Oregon AG. Smokeless powder was discovered well before Oregon statehood as were detachable cartridges. Auto loaders were being worked on at the time and introduced about 20yrs after statehood. Her experts were either not very bright or deceptive. You pay “experts” to say something and they will.
I find it quite troubling that the AG is arguing for a law and apparently does not know the first thing about what the law bans. She doesn’t know the difference between a clip, cartridge or magazine. If I were a judge and someone walked into court as uninformed as that I’d immediately gavel the case out of existence.
Fully automatic weapons were known to the Founders. Look up Puckle’s Patent.
“Her experts were either not very bright or deceptive.”
Embrace the power of AND.
“They were (attempting to be) very bright AT BEING deceptive….” when they thought they could get away with ~~ and got caught.
I didn’t know there was anyone left in Oregon who cared. Apparently the AG thought the same thing.
One should not make general statements, but I could not find an article from the main stream media that did not say the measure was “voter approved.”
Many of the articles did not show how close the vote was, but in my opinion, the use of “voter approved” while accurate, seeks to change the overall narrative a bit.
In essence, the articles are adding to a narrative that “no matter what the people want, there will be judges who dismiss them.”
People don’t understand the idea that a plurality of votes still does not allow violations of rights.
Even a “majority” vote does not allow a violation of rights … in a just world with attentive judges.
The Oregon Supreme Court will overturn this ruling, because they always overturn anything that the Dems don’t like. It’s like here in WA, where there was an anti-gun initiative that violated nearly all the rules for initiatives, but the the WA Supreme Court said it was OK. But they always veto every tax-cutting initiative, and they recently said that a tax on capital-gains income isn’t an income tax because they really want to enact income taxes.
The Fourth Circuit just ruled that Marylands requirement to obtain a permit to purchase a handgun is illegal and goes against the SC Bruen decision. If Oregon appeals this will be another example used to rule against them. So glad I left that state.
This case illustrates what rural America is going through. A tiny minority of counties with a few large cities are dictating laws to the rest. It’s the same everywhere from Montana to Nevada to Michigan to Maine to New York.
Greater Idaho is coming over this and it won’t be the last.
Add Washington to your list. The Seattle Democrats (4 counties) run the state and do whatever they want. The other 39 counties can’t override those 4 counties. In most of our elections for Governor, the Dem carries 4 counties (and wins), and the Rep carries 35 counties and loses.
I meant “the other 35 counties”.
My SWAG is that the measure was due to be defeted by 60% until the Multnomah County Department of Corrections (mistakenly called the Board of Elections) stepped in and changed the mail-in numbers. It is easier for them to juke the numbers in a referendum rather than to actually place their names next to a soon to be unpopular measure, like 110, the drug decriminalization measure, which truly was not the begiining of the end, but it gave the end a really big push.