Oregon Court Of Appeals Reverses Lower Court Decision, Lifts Hold on Ballot Measure 114

On Wednesday, March 12th, the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed a lower court decision that had declared unconstitutional Ballot Measure 114, which imposed a permit-to-purchase scheme and banned the possession of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The three-judge panel unanimously held that the provisions of BM 114 do not violate the Oregon state constitution.

The plaintiffs in the case now have 35 days to appeal to the state supreme court, during which time the provisions of BM 114 will not go into effect.

Ballot Measure 114 was voted on in November 2022, passing by a razor-thin margin 50.65-49.35 percent, and includes a permit-to-purchase scheme, "universal" background checks, and a 10-round magazine capacity limit.

The permit-to-purchase name is a misnomer. Individuals must complete several burdensome tasks to obtain the permit, but it does not actually permit them to purchase a firearm. The Measure’s text makes that crystal clear: “A permit-to-purchase issued under this section does not create any right of the permit holder to receive a firearm.”

Even worse, there is no system in place to obtain the permit. The lawsuit points this flaw out: “One might think that a state bent on imposing such a novel and burdensome permitting regime would at least take the time to make sure it had the infrastructure and resources in place to ensure that it would operate as smoothly as possible. But Oregon is not even willing to do that. Instead, the state has rushed the effective date of its new law to December 8, 2022—before the vote on Measure 114 has even been certified, and before the mechanisms to comply with it will be anywhere close to in place.” In effect, it is now legally impossible for law-abiding citizens to exercise their rights to acquire a firearm—a fundamental right preserved by the Second Amendment.

But that’s not all. Measure 114 also mislabels magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition as “large capacity magazines” and outlaws them. These magazines “are commonly owned by millions of Americans for all manner of lawful purposes, including self-defense, sporting, and hunting.” The lawsuit argues. “Today, Americans own roughly 115 million of them, accounting for ‘approximately half of all privately owned magazines in the United States.’” These commonly owned magazines cannot be outlawed under the Second Amendment. Indeed, just last summer, the United States Supreme Court reversed and remanded two other cases that the NRA brought challenging similar magazine bans in California and New Jersey.

This case was brought by Gun Owners of America and several other plaintiffs. The case is captioned Arnold v. Kotek, and you can read the full Court of Appeals decision here.

NRA is challenging Ballot Measure 114 in federal court. That case, Eyre v. Rosenblum, is currently stayed in the 9th Circuit awaiting a decision in the NRA's challenge to California's magazine ban, Duncan v. Bonta.

Please stay tuned to www.nraila.org for future updates on NRA-ILA’s ongoing efforts to defend your constitutional rights, and please visit https://www.nraila.org/legal-legislation/current-litigation/ to keep up to date on NRA-ILA’s ongoing litigation efforts.