A state trial in Oregon is underway to determine the constitutionality of recently approved gun laws, following their federal validation earlier this summer. Harney County Circuit Court Judge Robert Raschio is presiding over this six-day trial, commencing on Monday, aimed at assessing whether the Oregon Constitution permits the state to enact regulations such as banning high-capacity magazines and mandating background checks and permits for firearm purchases.
In November 2022, Ballot Measure 114, known as Melanie’s Law, passed narrowly with significant support from Multnomah, Washington, and Hood River counties, but faced strong opposition in Eastern and Southern Oregon. Since its approval, the law has been entangled in legal disputes at both the federal and state levels.
In December 2022, U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut allowed the law to take effect while awaiting a federal trial, which ultimately ruled the law constitutional in July. Concurrently, Judge Raschio halted the law’s provisions, pending the outcome of the state trial.
This lawsuit was initiated by two gun owners who argue that Measure 114 infringes on their right to bear arms, as established under Article 1, Section 27 of the Oregon Constitution. They contend that the new permitting system, approved by voters, could hinder their rights due to a lack of required training and concerns about the timeliness of mandated background checks. Additionally, they assert that magazines should be considered arms and, thus, protected under the state constitution.
Notably, the state trial differs from the federal trial, where both sides sought to establish a detailed historical record of 18th-century firearms and regulations, a record that could be influential in expected appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court. Oregon’s state constitution provides more leeway for firearm regulation compared to recent federal interpretations of the Second Amendment, which have expanded gun rights.
Jack Landau, a retired Oregon Supreme Court justice and law professor, highlighted this distinction, explaining that the state constitution necessitates only “reasonable regulation to protect public safety,” whereas the U.S. Supreme Court requires a “distinctly applicable historical exception” to restrict the right to bear arms.
During the state trial, the judge will assess the reasonableness of Measure 114 without delving into the evidence related to the dangers of high-capacity magazines or the effectiveness of purchase permits in curbing gun violence.
The outcome of this state trial is expected to influence the ongoing legal challenges to gun regulations and may eventually impact firearm-related legislation nationally. Regardless of the judge’s ruling, it is likely to be appealed, potentially reaching the Oregon Supreme Court and, ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court, given the prominence of gun laws and Measure 114.