img

Oregon judge rules new gun control legislation on magazine limits, permit applications is unconstitutional

"Nearly all people who own large capacity magazines are reasonable gun owners who are not identifiable risks to their community."

ADVERTISEMENT

"Nearly all people who own large capacity magazines are reasonable gun owners who are not identifiable risks to their community."

ADVERTISEMENT
On Tuesday, a circuit court judge in Oregon permanently blocked the Beaver State from enforcing a gun control law, saying the legislation infringes on the right to bear arms under the state constitution and, as a result, the measure will be unable to take effect. The state said it will file an appeal.

Measure 114, which calls for stricter gun control laws, was passed by Oregonians in 2022.

According to KGW8, the legislation requires a police-issued, five-year permit, a federal criminal background check and gun safety training on all gun purchases. It also bans the sale of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

Harney County Circuit Judge Robert S. Raschio ruled that two provisions of Measure 114 violate Article 1, Section 27 of the state’s constitution: "The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence [sic] of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power." 

Raschio wrote in his ruling that Measure 114 "…does not increase public safety."

He added that the 30-day window to process a gun permit application would prevent residents from defending themselves from an imminent threat.
 
The judge continued, "Nearly all people who own large capacity magazines are reasonable gun owners who are not identifiable risks to their community nor cast an unjustifiable risk or threat of harm to other citizens."

He also noted that the large-capacity magazine ban wouldn’t be a deterrent because a shooter could instead carry multiple 10-round magazines and reload quickly.

In September, a trial in Harney County over the legislation’s constitutionality concluded, but it has been stalled by legal challenges at the state and federal levels.

Earlier this year, a federal judge ruled the measure was constitutional but the ruling is being appealed.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Sign in to comment

Comments

Powered by The Post Millennial CMS™ Comments

Join and support independent free thinkers!

We’re independent and can’t be cancelled. The establishment media is increasingly dedicated to divisive cancel culture, corporate wokeism, and political correctness, all while covering up corruption from the corridors of power. The need for fact-based journalism and thoughtful analysis has never been greater. When you support The Post Millennial, you support freedom of the press at a time when it's under direct attack. Join the ranks of independent, free thinkers by supporting us today for as little as $1.

Support The Post Millennial

Remind me next month

To find out what personal data we collect and how we use it, please visit our Privacy Policy

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
By signing up you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy
ADVERTISEMENT
© 2024 The Post Millennial, Privacy Policy | Do Not Sell My Personal Information