Measure 114, which was narrowly approved by Oregon voters in 2022, bans the purchase of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition and requires a permit for anybody purchasing a firearm. The measure never went into effect after it faced a number of legal challenges, but on Wednesday the Oregon Court of Appeals declared the measure constitutional. This overturns a 2023 decision from an Eastern Oregon judge who ruled it violated Oregon law. OPB reporter Conrad Wilson joins us to explain what it all means.
Note: The following transcript was transcribed digitally and validated for accuracy, readability and formatting by an OPB volunteer.
Dave Miller: This is Think Out Loud on OPB. I’m Dave Miller. All of the provisions of Measure 114 are constitutional. That is the central message of the ruling that came out this morning from the Oregon Court of Appeals. It’s about the firearm regulation measure that voters very narrowly passed in 2022. The measure bans the purchase of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition and requires a permit for anybody purchasing a firearm, but it never went into effect because of a series of legal challenges.
Conrad Wilson has been covering this measure for a few years now. He joins us to talk about what this ruling means. It’s good to see you.
Conrad Wilson: Hey, Dave.
Miller: Can you remind us what voters narrowly approved when they passed Measure 114?
Wilson: Sure. The law would do several things. It requires people to get a permit before they purchase a firearm. In order to get a permit, a buyer has to pass a criminal background check and also complete a gun safety course. Measure 114 would also ban the purchase of magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition – those are sometimes referred to as large capacity magazines. And then finally, the law would close a loophole known as the Charleston loophole. It allows a gun transfer to go forward if it takes more than three days. And that reference is to the 2015 mass shooting at a church in South Carolina. The shooter would have been basically blocked from buying a gun if the loophole had not been in place.
And you had mentioned the measure narrowly passed. Just to kind of put a finer point on that Measure 114, passed with like 50.6% of the vote. And although there were “yes” votes from every county, the greatest support for the measure came from Multnomah County. In several rural counties across the state, voters rejected it nearly three to one.
Miller: But it did pass, and then legal challenges immediately followed in state and federal courts. These are separate legal tracks. Broadly, what did opponents argue?
Wilson: They argued that the case was not about public safety or or about public health, and really about an individual right to self-defense. They essentially said that the Oregon and U.S. Constitutions provide for the right to bear arms. Opponents argued that Measure 114 infringed on that, and went too far in regulating a right that has the equal rights to all the other parts and protections provided in the state and federal constitutions.
Miller: What happened with the federal case?
Wilson: A federal judge in Oregon, U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut, ruled in 2023 that Measure 114 was lawful under the U.S. Constitution. Her ruling was epic – 122 pages. It was the result of a weeklong trial that honestly resembled a historical documentary that I just couldn’t stop watching.
Let me just give a little context. Earlier, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2022 in the case: New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. It’s generally known as the Bruen decision. It found that lower courts can no longer consider whether a law restricting firearms serves public interest, such as enhancing public safety. Rather, the Supreme Court ruled that they should look at the text of the Second Amendment. That was a really big finding. The Bruen decision also stated that firearms regulations must be “consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulations.” So basically, look at the Second Amendment to see if you can regulate firearms in the way you want to now.
And because of that ruling, this 2023 trial in federal court here in Portland had just a parade of firearms experts, historians who focus on this very wonky part of American history that examined how firearms had been regulated historically. So it’s a very long way of answering your question, but the contribution Judge Immergut and that trial made on this issue of how we can and cannot regulate firearms, it can’t be understated how significant that was.
Miller: And she found for the state, saying that under the US Constitution, Measure114 is constitutional?
Wilson: Yes, right.
Miller: So this gets us to the state case and today’s news. But today’s news was based on a ruling from Harney County Circuit Circuit Court Judge Robert Raschio. What did he rule in 2023?
Wilson: He had a trial that was much smaller in scope, but it did include some of the same experts and looked at many of the same issues. It was kind of a sort of a repeat trial, except that the main difference was really looking at whether 114 was lawful under the state constitution, under state law. And Raschio found that Measure 114 violated the Oregon Constitution, and that ruling blocked it from going into effect.
Miller: That is what was appealed to the Oregon Court of Appeals. What arguments did lawyers from the Oregon Department of Justice make in favor of Measure 114?
Wilson: Yeah, good question. They called Raschio’s ruling erroneous, and said under Oregon’s Constitution, the legal standard allows for reasonable restrictions. And they argued that Measure 114 reasonably promotes public safety.
Miller: It seems that the appeals court judges agreed with those arguments. What stands out to you in their ruling that was just released a few hours ago?
Wilson: A few things. There’s several parts to Measure 114, right? And here the appeals court found that all of them were valid.
The other part is just the court kind of calling out Judge Raschio. Judges do get overturned, but they basically said it was quite clear he applied the wrong legal framework, and basically said he got it all wrong when he found the 114 unconstitutional.
Miller: So does this mean it’s all over? Is Measure 114, the new state level restrictions on firearm ownership and purchases, now all going to go into effect?
Wilson: No, not at all. And it’s not something that would even go into effect immediately. Opponents have vowed to appeal. In a statement we got this morning from Tony Aiello Jr. – the lead counsel in the case – he said Measure 114 has turned millions of Oregonians into criminals because the right to bear arms has been erased by Oregon’s judiciary, and said that they intend to appeal to the Oregon Supreme Court.
Backers of Measure 114, however, welcomed the court’s ruling. Jess Marks is the executive director for the Alliance for a Safe Oregon, and this is what she said just a little bit ago …
Jess Marks [recording]: The gun lobby, backed and paid for by the gun industry, has brought these lawsuits against the wishes of Oregonians. Oregonians brought this measure to the ballot. They passed it, and it’s the gun lobby that has brought these lawsuits forward. And we intend, in partnership with all the folks who’ve worked on this issue, to see Oregonians' wishes through. So as much as we anticipate that expected appeal, we will continue to fight for Oregonians' votes and wishes.
Miller: Alright, let’s go from the judicial branch of government to the legislative one. What are Oregon lawmakers considering right now in terms of gun regulation?
Wilson: Basically, there’s a bill that would do some of the things that 114 does, it’s kind of an effort to sort of speed it up a little bit. This has obviously been a case that’s been bouncing around for a long time. A bill would basically require state police to complete criminal background checks before guns are sold, kind of closing that Charleston loophole we had talked about.
Miller: Conrad, thanks very much.
Wilson: You’re welcome, Dave.
Miller: Conrad Wilson covers criminal justice issues for OPB. He joined us to talk about the news from this morning from the Oregon Court of Appeals – the court finding that Oregon voter-passed firearm regulation measure, Measure 114, is constitutional.
Contact “Think Out Loud®”
If you’d like to comment on any of the topics in this show or suggest a topic of your own, please get in touch with us on Facebook, send an email to thinkoutloud@opb.org, or you can leave a voicemail for us at 503-293-1983. The call-in phone number during the noon hour is 888-665-5865.
