The state trial over Oregon’s voter-approved gun control law wrapped up in Harney County on Sept. 25.
Harney County Circuit Court Judge Robert S. Raschio said he would legally need to deliver his decision about whether Measure 114 violates the state Constitution within 60 days, but that he hopes to reach it sooner.
“I want to make sure I make the right decision under the law and facts here,” Judge Raschio told attorneys following closing arguments.
Measure 114 has been tied up in federal and state courts since shortly after voters passed it with just 50.7 percent support in November 2022.
Largely carried by Portland-area voters in Multnomah, Washington, and Hood River counties, the measure was soundly defeated in eastern and southern Oregon.
Gun rights advocates have called the measure one of the most extreme gun laws in the country, claiming it will strip law-abiding citizens of their constitutional right to bear arms in the state.
Initially set to take effect on Dec. 8, 2022, the measure has been on hold since Judge Raschio issued a preliminary injunction allowing parties to argue its legality in federal and state courts.
The measure has already been heard in federal court, where U.S. District Judge Karen Immergut ruled that it did not violate the U.S. Constitution.
Plaintiffs in that case filed an appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. This could move the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Arguments
The six-day bench trial aimed to determine whether the Oregon Constitution allows the state to ban magazines that can hold, or be modified to hold, more than 10 rounds as well as to require a permit to purchase a firearm.
Plaintiffs Cliff Asmussen and Joseph Arnold are gun owners who allege that the new permit-to-purchase provision will infringe on their right to bear arms under Article 1, Section 27 of the Oregon Constitution.
They claim that required training is not yet in place and that there are questions about whether the mandated background checks can be completed. They also argue that magazines should be considered arms and therefore protected under the state constitution.
Plaintiffs’ attorney Tony Aiello, Jr. said Ballot Measure 114 represents the “most significant threat to [the right to bear arms] Oregonians have faced in nearly 165 years.”
“This case is not about public health, public safety, or public concern,” Mr. Aiello argued. “This is about the individual right to self-defense and the right to bear arms.”
Oregon Department of Justice defense attorneys argued that the measure would improve public safety.
“The public had a valid public safety purpose in passing Measure 114, and the large-capacity magazine restriction also does not unduly burden the right to bear arms,” argued Oregon Assistant Attorney General Brian Marshall.
“The permit-to-purchase provisions do not prohibit the acquisition of firearms; they require individuals to exhibit that they’re not a danger to themselves or others.”
Plaintiffs disagreed.
“If a right can be taken away simply because it furthers public safety in some way, it’s not a right at all,” said Mr. Aiello. “There are still Oregonians that are willing to go to bat for those rights in court against the might of the state.”
Judge Raschio commended attorneys for their professionalism in making the case for their clients. He specifically called out Mr. Aiello’s performance as “phenomenal,” given his limited experience.
Mr. Aiello has been practicing for only three years and this was his first trial.
He faced a team that included nine attorneys representing the State of Oregon and specifically Gov. Tina Kotek and Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum.
Road Ahead
Already court watchers are forecasting the ruling.
Judge Raschio “concluded last December that he thinks it more likely than not that Measure 114 violates the Oregon Constitution’s protection of the right to bear arms,” explained Norman Williams, a Willamette University law professor, in a recorded interview published on Oregon Public Broadcasting.
“It’s highly unlikely that he’s going to reverse himself.”
For Measure 114 to survive, the state must win in both the federal and state courts. Gun rights advocates only have to prevail in one of these cases for the measure to be struck down.
Mr. Aiello said his clients are “confident that the record before the court justifies a victory for responsible Oregon gun owners.”
Oregon Attorney General Rosenblum said that regardless of how Judge Raschio rules, she expects the outcome to be appealed, further delaying the date on which the law will take effect.
