Oregon Lawmakers, Courts Weigh Strict New Gun Laws

The Oregon legislature is debating three new gun bills while the Oregon Supreme Court considers the fate of a ballot measure on hold since 2022.

A person holds a 3D-printed ghost gun during a statewide gun buyback event held by the office of the New York State Attorney General in the Brooklyn borough of New York on April 29, 2023. Yuki Iwamura/AFP via Getty Images

The battle over firearm safety regulations versus gun rights is raging in Oregon.

The fate of Ballot Measure 114, which has been tied up in litigation since voters approved it in 2022, now resides with the Oregon Supreme Court.

The measure is widely deemed to contain the strictest gun laws in the nation.

Democrat lawmakers, who hold the majority in both legislative chambers, are not waiting for a ruling. Instead, they are advancing three firearms safety bills.

HB 3075 would essentially implement the tenets of Measure 114 with a few changes.

The bill would increase the length of time a “permit agent” has to issue or deny permits, and increase fees to apply for or renew a permit from $65 to $150.

“We’re very eager to have it [Measure 114] put in place,” said Liz McKenna of Lift Every Voice Oregon, the grassroots organization that sponsored the measure, during public testimony on March 18.

“It’s time to see what it can do.”

Testifying in opposition, Republican state Rep. Alek Skarlatos criticized the proposed $150 permit fee and $110 renewal fee as discriminatory toward low-income individuals, who he claimed are more likely to use firearms for self-defense.

“A $300 rifle is now $450, plus the $48 background check fee,” he said.

The bill also extends the time for the state to issue a permit to a qualified applicant from 30 to 60 days from receipt of the application.

Though he has supported “most gun violence measures in the past decade,” Democrat Rep. Paul Evans bucked his party by calling HB 3075 “an attack on disadvantaged Oregonians” in his April newsletter.

State Licensing for Dealers

Bill 3076 would direct the Oregon Department of Justice to create a state licensing program for gun dealers, with license application and renewal fees as much as $1,500 annually and potential increases of 20 percent each year.

Oregon firearm dealers are currently licensed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) and require a Federal Firearms License (FFL), with no additional licensing requirements.

Under HB 3076, a valid FFL from the ATF would no longer be sufficient to operate a gun store in the state.

Shops of all sizes and home-based FFLs would be required to install a digital video surveillance system that records at any time a customer is on the premises.

Gun transfers would have to be captured on video with a three-year storage requirement.

All FFL employees who handle firearms or ammunition would be required to first pass a state-certified training course that hasn’t been developed yet and follow that training with annual refreshers.

“HB 3076, as amended, creates absurd and draconian new restrictions on gun dealers in an effort to shut down as many firearms businesses as possible,” the Oregon Firearms Federation told The Epoch Times.

“However, the new rules also apply to home-based FFLs and will apply at gun shows, where the requirements will be impossible to comply with.”

Oregon House Republicans criticized both bills, saying they restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens to bear arms while doing nothing to reduce crime and uphold public safety.

“These bills are an attack on the constitutional right to bear arms,” House Minority Leader Rep. Christine Drazan said in an April 8 statement to the media.

“The only thing these bills do is punish law-abiding gun owners and small businesses that are in full compliance with federal law.”

Evans again broke with his party in saying that he is “adamantly opposed” to all of Oregon’s pending gun legislation.

“The fervor advancing these measures has caused me to earnestly reconsider my party affiliation,” he wrote in his newsletter.

Both House bills contain an “emergency declaration.” This clause ensures that the bills would go into effect as soon as the governor signs them, rather than waiting until January of the following year.

Meanwhile, in the Senate ...

Introduced by Democrat Sen. Floyd Prozanski, Senate Bill 243 would require a 72-hour waiting period to obtain a gun after a buyer passes a background check.

It would also ban rapid-fire devices like bump stocks, binary triggers, and rapid-fire activators, and would allow local governments to ban firearms in public buildings, Prozanski explained in an April 9 podcast.

“The first part of the law is designed to help prevent suicides or domestic violence,” by requiring a wait time for people with “high emotions,” Prozanski said.

“It would give them time to rethink their position before carrying out suicide or domestic violence.”

Evans described the requirement for a three-day waiting period after passing a background check a “theft of liberty.”

“Who would support a three-day waiting period for the purchase of an automobile, the delivery of alcohol or a gummy, or for an appointment providing reproductive care?”

Testifying in support of the bill on March 27, Jess Marks, executive director for the gun safety advocacy group Alliance For A Safe Oregon, said that regulations have not kept pace as firearm technology has changed.

“While there has been this huge shift in the technology and the types of firearms available, there have been almost no changes in how this new technology is regulated,” Marks testified.

Tracking Measure 114

Voters approved Ballot Measure 114, requiring a permit to purchase a gun, with a 50.75 percent margin. The measure remains on hold pending legal challenges.

Under the measure, prospective buyers must pass a criminal background check and complete a gun safety course to obtain a permit to purchase a firearm.

They must also prove they are not a danger to themselves or others.

If it stands, the measure overrides the “Charleston Loophole,” a law that currently allows firearm transfers to proceed if a background check takes more than three days.

Additionally, it restricts magazines that are “capable of holding or being modified to hold” more than 10 rounds.

A Harney County, Oregon, circuit court judge ruled in November 2023 that Measure 114 violated the state constitution.

In a major reversal of that ruling, a three-judge panel of the Oregon Court of Appeals found in March this year that the measure does not violate the state constitution’s right to bear arms.

The court lifted the hold on the law pending a 35-day period during which plaintiffs could seek further appellate review.

On April 14, the plaintiffs, two Harney County gun owners, asked the Oregon Supreme Court to weigh in.

In a 24-page petition, their attorney, Tony L. Aiello, Jr., argued that the measure violates the Oregon Constitution’s established right to bear arms.

The plaintiffs contend that its requirement to obtain a permit to buy a gun would turn that constitutional right “into a privilege for the government to grant or refuse.”

The state supreme court can take up to 90 days to act, Aiello explained in a social media address on April 15.

“At some point, the supreme court will decide to hear our case, not hear our case, or the legislature may pass HB 3075,” one of three bills introduced in the state legislature in January, he said.

Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield vowed that the state would defend Measure 114.

“Oregonians voted for this, and it’s time we move ahead with common-sense safety measures,” Rayfield said.

The state ranks 12th in the nation for the strength of its gun laws, according to Everytown Research.

State law requires that guns be securely stored whenever they are not in their owner’s immediate control, prohibits guns at the state capitol, and gives colleges and universities the authority to prohibit guns on their grounds.

In 2023, the state enacted a prohibition on untraceable “ghost guns” and 3D-printed guns.