Oregon Court of Appeals Hears Arguments on Gun Control Ballot Measure 114

The ongoing debate over Oregon’s Ballot Measure 114 –  a law mandating limits on gun magazine capacity and requiring permits for gun purchases – has now reached the Oregon Court of Appeals. Approved by a slim margin in 2022, the measure has been suspended in legal limbo due to numerous challenges.

This week, both sides presented their arguments to a three-judge panel, with advocates pushing for the measure’s implementation and opponents arguing it infringes upon constitutional rights. Reports from Oregon Live, OPB, and William Kirk of Washington Gun Law offer insights into the major points of contention surrounding this divisive measure.

The Argument for Public Safety

In an account by Oregon Live, Senior Assistant Attorney General Robert A. Koch argued on behalf of the state, emphasizing that Measure 114’s regulations are meant to promote public safety without impeding the fundamental right to self-defense. Koch maintained that limiting magazine capacity to 10 rounds could help prevent the types of mass shootings witnessed in the United States, including the 2017 Las Vegas shooting. He pointed to examples of mass shootings where pauses to reload created opportunities for potential victims to escape or intervene, arguing that the measure’s provisions are both reasonable and necessary to curb gun violence.

Blocking the Measure for Constitutional Concerns

The case opposing the measure was presented by attorney Tony L. Aiello Jr., representing gun rights advocates who view Measure 114 as an excessive overreach. As Oregon Live detailed, Aiello argued that the law unjustly restricts all Oregonians, effectively treating them as dangerous until proven otherwise. This, he said, contradicts the Oregon Constitution’s guarantee of the right to bear arms, as it requires individuals to undergo training and acquire permits just to exercise their right to purchase a firearm. According to Aiello, the burden of proof for public safety should rest on the state, rather than on law-abiding citizens.

Historical Context of Firearms in Self-Defense

The debate touched on historical interpretations of gun rights, with Koch referencing older firearms like single-shot flintlocks to illustrate that magazine capacity is a modern development without historical basis in self-defense. In response, Appeals Judge Josephine H. Mooney pointed out that some Civil War-era weapons had multi-shot capabilities, demonstrating that more than one round per magazine is not exclusively a modern innovation. Koch contended that high-capacity magazines evolved with military intentions and have little place in civilian self-defense.

The “Charleston Loophole” Controversy

Measure 114 includes a provision to close the “Charleston loophole,” which allows gun sales to proceed if a background check takes more than three days without a definitive result. The loophole is named after the 2015 Charleston church shooting, where the shooter obtained a gun despite failing to pass a background check in time. Oregon Public Broadcasting reported that Koch argued for closing this loophole to ensure that only those who pass thorough background checks can purchase firearms. Aiello countered that the measure could lead to indefinite delays without clear recourse for buyers, potentially denying Oregonians their rights without due process.

The Role of Background Checks

Both Oregon Live and OPB emphasized Aiello’s objection to the measure’s requirement for an additional, separate background check, which includes an FBI fingerprint check. Aiello argued this extra layer of vetting is redundant, given existing federal background checks, and called it “prophylaxis upon prophylaxis.” He described the requirement as unnecessary and a violation of personal freedoms, adding that most gun buyers in Oregon are already cleared within minutes under current laws.

William Kirk’s Perspective on “Pre-Purchase Licensing”

William Kirk, president of Washington Gun Law, echoed some of the concerns raised by Aiello in a recent video on his YouTube channel. Kirk criticized Measure 114’s requirement that citizens complete training and obtain permits before purchasing firearms, describing it as an infringement on a constitutional right. Kirk went as far as to compare the measure to requiring permission from the government before attending church or publishing news. In his view, the law sets a dangerous precedent by making rights conditional on government approval, which he argues goes against the spirit of the Constitution.

Debate Over the Measure’s Actual Impact on Safety

Koch argued that limiting magazine capacity and closing the Charleston loophole could directly save lives by reducing the number of rounds an attacker can fire without reloading. He cited several cases, including the Sandy Hook and Poway synagogue shootings, as evidence that requiring attackers to reload can provide life-saving opportunities. However, Aiello countered that the state has not provided definitive proof that these restrictions would actually prevent crime, insisting that public safety arguments need more empirical support to justify such broad restrictions.

Implications Beyond Oregon’s State Borders

The legal battle over Measure 114 has caught the attention of both national and regional gun rights advocates, including the Gun Owners of America and the Gun Owners Foundation, both of which have supported the lawsuit. According to OPB, this case could set a legal precedent, with both supporters and opponents closely watching its implications for future gun control measures across the country. As the case moves forward, there’s potential for it to be appealed to the state’s Supreme Court and even potentially influence national standards for gun regulation.

Tensions Between State and Federal Interpretations

In addition to the state case, Washington Gun Law’s William Kirk highlighted a separate but related case in federal court in Portland, where U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut ruled that Measure 114 does not violate the U.S. Constitution. According to Kirk, this federal decision was based on the recent Supreme Court ruling that limits restrictions on Second Amendment rights. This creates a unique situation where the state and federal courts could arrive at different interpretations, potentially complicating the legal path forward.

Presumed “Guilty Until Proven Innocent”?

One of the most contentious points from the oral arguments was Aiello’s assertion that Measure 114 treats all Oregonians as potentially dangerous until they prove otherwise. He argued that by requiring a permit and training before purchase, the measure assumes individuals are “unfit” to own a gun until they complete these steps. As OPB reported, Aiello compared this treatment to a presumption of guilt, framing it as an unconstitutional hurdle for citizens who want to exercise their rights.

A Decision Looming but No Clear Timeline

The three-judge panel did not indicate when they would issue a ruling on Measure 114. Both sides, however, acknowledge that the decision will likely be appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court, regardless of the outcome. With passionate arguments from both proponents and opponents, Oregon residents and advocates across the nation await a verdict that will have far-reaching implications for the balance between public safety and constitutional rights.

Oregon’s Pivotal Moment in Gun Legislation

The Oregon Court of Appeals’ decision on Measure 114 could have a monumental impact on gun rights and public safety regulations in Oregon and beyond. The case raises challenging questions about how far states can go in regulating firearms while respecting individual rights. For both supporters and opponents of the measure, the stakes are high, and the outcome of this case could serve as a turning point in the national conversation on gun control. The arguments laid out in the court reflect broader debates about security, freedom, and how best to protect the public without infringing on constitutional liberties.