Attorney William Kirk says Oregon has reached “the last battle” over Ballot Measure 114.
On his Washington Gun Law channel, he traces the fight back to his first video on the measure in November 2022, noting how it has defined the debate ever since.
Kirk emphasizes a simple truth.
After this stage, there’s nowhere else to go inside the state courts.
Oral arguments in Arnold v. Kotek are set before the Oregon Supreme Court on November 6 at 9:00 a.m., Kirk explains.
That date now looms as a referendum on what the right to keep and bear arms means under Oregon law.
How We Got Here
Voters narrowly approved Measure 114, Kirk recounts. The law contains three pillars: a magazine capacity ban, a permit-to-purchase requirement, and closing the so-called “Charleston loophole.”
Lawsuits followed immediately. One of them, heard in Harney County by Judge Raschio, ended with an injunction after a full bench trial.
Kirk stresses a crucial detail that too many people miss.
“This case has always been about the Oregon Constitution,” he says – Article I, Section 27 – not the federal Second Amendment.
That strategic choice matters. It means the Oregon Supreme Court will interpret Oregon’s own right-to-bear-arms provision, not federal doctrine from Heller, McDonald, or Bruen – even if those decisions hang over the conversation.
The Appeals Court Reversal – and What’s Now at Stake
After Judge Raschio enjoined Measure 114, the state appealed. Kirk notes that emergency stay requests failed, but the Oregon Court of Appeals later reversed on the merits, green-lighting the law.
That reversal put the case on a fast track to the state’s high court.
Kirk frames the moment starkly: if the Supreme Court approves Measure 114 under Article I, Section 27, it will redefine the right in Oregon for years.
He’s blunt about the stakes. Once you must seek the government’s permission and “prove your worthiness,” he says, the thing you have is not really a right anymore.
I think that framing is more than rhetoric. Licensing schemes always promise “neutral criteria,” but in practice they invite delay, discretion, and rationing.
If the justices bless that model at the point of purchase, it’s easy to extend it to possession and carry.
The State’s Arguments, According to Kirk
Kirk walks through how Oregon defends Measure 114 under the state constitution. On magazines, the state says they are not “arms” under Article I, Section 27 at all.
They’re accessories, the argument goes, not weapons in themselves. And because high-capacity designs “emerged decades after 1859,” the state claims they fall outside the provision’s original scope.
The state also leans on past Oregon cases, Kirk says, suggesting that semi-automatic technology doesn’t warrant protection under Article I, Section 27.
In other words, the state invites the court to freeze the right in the 19th century.
On the permit-to-purchase, the state argues it’s a reasonable, facially constitutional process.
Kirk summarizes their points: background checks, mental-health disqualifiers, and safety training are “responsible” prerequisites that correlate with reductions in homicides and mass shootings, and therefore don’t unduly frustrate armed self-defense.
Kirk’s view is that the state wants a broad ruling. If magazines aren’t “arms,” and if permits are “reasonable,” the government gains a durable green light to expand both restrictions in the future.
I’m skeptical of the state’s magazine theory. A semi-auto without a magazine is a paperweight; functionally, the magazine is integral to the “arm.”
It’s hard to pretend the core of the right protects a mechanism only when disassembled.
The Plaintiffs’ Pushback, As Kirk Describes It
Kirk says the plaintiffs argue the law threatens more than magazines and paperwork.
They warn it sets up a theory that would leave Oregonians defending themselves with “antiques.”
On magazines, plaintiffs argue that Article I, Section 27 covers them because a magazine is part of the firearm.
You don’t need a piecemeal “firearm-by-firearm” history test when the ban sweeps across all common semi-autos.
Kirk highlights their historical case. Pre-1859 America saw multi-shot and repeating arms – with evolving magazine-like feeding systems – already in circulation.
Technological improvements in capacity were expected, not alien to the right.
The plaintiffs also argue the ban fails even if the court balances interests. It doesn’t regulate “manner of use,” it undercuts public safety, and it unduly frustrates the right to bear arms by hamstringing reliable, standard configurations.
On the permit, Kirk says the plaintiffs warn about the slope from permit to purchase to permit to possess.
He points to Illinois and its FOID-style regime as a cautionary tale, where administrative revocations cascade into confiscations and carry suspensions.
That’s the domino pattern Kirk wants Oregonians to see now, not later. Permits become preconditions, preconditions become pretexts, and pretexts become a pipeline to disarmament by paperwork.
I agree this is the live policy risk. Anything that inserts administrative delay between a citizen and a right becomes a lever for rationing and “slow-roll” denials.
Courts rarely monitor the day-to-day frictions; agencies learn quickly where they can squeeze.
What Article I, Section 27 Really Asks
Kirk keeps steering viewers back to the text: “The people shall have the right to bear arms for defense of themselves and the state.”
If that right is about defense, then the court should ask a practical question: Does the law materially improve safety without gutting the tools people use for defense?
On magazines, Kirk suggests the answer is no. Limiting capacity impairs common platforms more than it slows determined attackers, who plan around constraints.
On permits, he argues the state can already deny prohibited persons at the federal NICS stage.
Adding a new state gate – with training queues, mental-health screenings, and local sign-offs – invites backlogs and bias more than it filters true risks.
One more important point Kirk makes: because this case is under Oregon’s constitution, the court need not mirror Bruen’s exact federal test.
But it should still respect history and tradition as guardrails. If 1859 Oregonians understood improvement and repetition as part of the arms continuum, then capacity limits look out of step with that tradition.
I’d add this: State constitutions often promise broader rights than the federal floor, not narrower.
If Oregon charts a reading that undercuts the federal baseline in spirit, it could spark new federal suits later – even if Arnold itself remains a state-law case.
What Happens After November 6
Kirk doesn’t predict an outcome, but he’s plain about the implications. If the state wins, Measure 114’s permit and magazine rules will become the model for future restrictions.
If the plaintiffs win, Oregon’s high court would reaffirm that Article I, Section 27 guards modern, functional arms and the ability to acquire them without first passing a government “worthiness” test.
That would ripple across every city and county policy built on Measure 114’s scaffolding.
Either way, Kirk treats this as Oregon’s constitutional moment. It will decide whether the right is something you exercise, or something you petition for.
My view: the court should resist rebranding essential parts of a firearm as “not arms,” and it should be wary of turning a right into a permission slip.
Safety and liberty aren’t enemies, but when a process blocks ordinary, lawful people at the point of exercise, it’s the right that gets hollowed out.
William Kirk closes with a call to “arm yourself with education.”
For Oregon gun owners, that starts with knowing what Article I, Section 27 protects—and ends with watching what the justices do with it on November 6 at 9:00 a.m.
UP NEXT: “Heavily Armed” — See Which States Are The Most Strapped
Image Credit: Survival World
Americans have long debated the role of firearms, but one thing is sure — some states are far more armed than others. See where your state ranks in this new report on firearm ownership across the U.S.
Gary’s love for adventure and preparedness stems from his background as a former Army medic. Having served in remote locations around the world, he knows the importance of being ready for any situation, whether in the wilderness or urban environments. Gary’s practical medical expertise blends with his passion for outdoor survival, making him an expert in both emergency medical care and rugged, off-the-grid living. He writes to equip readers with the skills needed to stay safe and resilient in any scenario.
