The Oregon Court of Appeals set a national precedent on Feb. 15 when it struck down a voter-approved Second Amendment Sanctuary Ordinance (SASO) that claimed state and federal firearms regulations didn’t apply in Columbia County, just north of Portland.
The ruling deals a blow to the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement, which has gained momentum around the country in recent years.
More than 1,900 cities, towns, and counties have declared themselves sanctuaries in the fight against gun-control efforts.
“Today’s opinion by the Court of Appeals made it clear that common sense requirements like safe storage and background checks apply throughout Oregon,” said Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum.
“Hopefully, other counties with similar measures on the books will see the writing on the wall.”
Win for Controlling Guns
A three-judge panel unanimously found that Columbia County’s SASO was preempted by Oregon firearms laws.
“The ordinance, with limited exception, purports to nullify all firearm regulations enacted by the Legislative Assembly,” Judge Douglas Tookey wrote on behalf of the court.
“If allowed to stand, it would, effectively, create a ‘patchwork quilt’ of firearms laws in Oregon, where firearms regulations that applied in some counties would not apply in Columbia County.”
Gun-control advocates celebrated the ruling.
“Today’s ruling is a win for public safety and the rule of law,” wrote Eric Tirschwell, executive director of Everytown Law, which challenged the ordinance in court on behalf of Everytown.
“The people of Oregon expect their local leaders to both put their safety first and to comply with state law and with the U.S. Constitution—picking and choosing which state and federal laws apply to them does neither.”
Everytown praised the ruling and said it struck a blow against the “constitutional sheriffs movement,” which claims that sheriffs can preempt other law enforcement officials on such matters.
Judge Slams ‘Antisemitic’ and Racist' Tropes
Writing in his concurrence, Appeals Judge James Egan agreed with Everytown, and added that both “constitutional sheriffs” and the SOSA movement “embrace racist and white nationalist ideologies.”
He then took supporters of such movements to task, specifically calling out the arguments of gun rights organizations, including Gun Owners of America and Oregon Firearms Foundation (OFF) and other intervenors in the case.
“On occasion, individual members of the court must call out illegitimate quasi-legal arguments and theories for what they are—viz., antisemitic and racist tropes,” he wrote.
“Intervenor’s reference oral argument about UN mandates in support of an absolute right to firearms threatens to give legal foundation to a world view that embraces religious, racial, and ethnic hatred,” his writing continued.
The arguments for SOSA and constitutional sheriffs movement are “deeply rooted in Anglo-American law … and also have their origins in the writings of the Aryan Nation, an antisemitic white supremacist group,” Judge Egan added.
OFF vehemently objected.
“These kind of baseless and grossly unprofessional attacks are unconscionable,” OFF’s executive director Kevin Starrett wrote to The Epoch Times.
“The Columbia County case was carefully and thoughtfully argued. To suggest its motives were white supremacist or antisemitic is a lie and defamatory. But it also calls into question the legitimacy of the court and the likelihood of getting fair rulings from it.”
Six Sheriffs Won’t Enforce Law
The Columbia County SASO ruling comes as multiple suits involving Oregon’s Ballot Measure 114, one of the strictest gun control measures in the country, continue in both federal and state courts.
Narrowly passed by voters in November, the measure requires Oregonians to undergo a background check and take a class, which does not yet exist, to obtain a permit to purchase a firearm.
It also bans magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.
After it passed, six elected sheriffs around the state declared that they would not enforce the law, as they believed it violated the Second Amendment.
“Our lawsuits against Measure 114 continue in federal court and, while we have not had favorable rulings so far, we are confident that eventually, we will win,” wrote Starrett.
“But we are very dubious that the parallel case in state court will be decided fairly if it gets to the Oregon Court of Appeals.”
Meanwhile, 16 Oregon counties have passed some sort of pro-Second Amendment ordinance in Oregon, but the issue has never before been by the appeals court.
AG Rosenblum previously sued Harley and Yamhill Counties over their pro-Second Amendment ordinances. Both have since rescinded those ordinances.
