Oregon’s Measure 114 remains in legal limbo, two years after narrowly passing with 50.7% of the vote. This controversial gun control law, which includes a ban on magazines holding over 10 rounds and mandates permits and safety classes for gun purchases, has been stalled due to a series of lawsuits questioning its constitutionality.
The latest developments unfolded at the Oregon Court of Appeals, where state attorneys argued for the law’s validity. They emphasized that modern high-capacity firearms, which evolved primarily for military use, differ significantly from weapons in existence when Oregon’s constitution was drafted, thus potentially falling outside constitutional protections for personal self-defense.
Pointing to events like the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, the state argued that such high-capacity firearms pose unique dangers that justify tighter controls.
Conversely, the gun owners’ attorneys argued that the permit and background check requirements violate Oregon’s constitution.
They contend that Measure 114 unduly burdens the rights of all gun owners, subjecting everyone to an additional check and mandatory training—an approach they claim presumes gun buyers are unfit until proven otherwise.
The panel of judges is now considering the scope of their review, focusing on whether to examine the case de novo as if starting fresh or limit their review to errors made by the lower court.
This decision, along with the interpretation of whether Measure 114 is unconstitutional in all cases or only some, will shape the law’s future. The ongoing debate underscores the broader tension between historical firearm rights and modern concerns over gun violence and public safety.