PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — An Oregon judge is scheduled to determine whether a gun control law, which was narrowly approved by voters in November, violates the state’s constitution. The trial is set to begin on Monday.
This law, considered one of the strictest in the nation, came into question after a significant U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year altered the criteria judges use when evaluating Second Amendment cases.
Known as Measure 114, this legislation has faced legal challenges in both federal and state courts since its passage in November 2022, creating uncertainty about its future.
The law mandates that individuals complete a gun safety training course and undergo a criminal background check to obtain a permit for purchasing a firearm. Additionally, it prohibits high-capacity magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds.
Circuit Court Judge Robert S. Raschio will preside over the trial in Harney County, a vast rural region in southeastern Oregon. Judge Raschio had previously issued a temporary block on the law in December, following a lawsuit from gun owners who argued that it violated their right to bear arms under the Oregon Constitution.
This Oregon measure was enacted in response to a Supreme Court ruling in June 2022, which established new criteria for evaluating gun laws. This ruling upended the longstanding balancing test that judges had relied on to assess the constitutionality of gun laws. Instead, it instructed judges to assess whether a law aligns with the historical tradition of firearm regulation in the country, with less consideration for public safety concerns.
The aftermath of this ruling led to uncertainty regarding which gun control laws could withstand legal challenges. Some laws aimed at restricting access to firearms for domestic abusers, felons, and marijuana users were overturned by courts. The Supreme Court is expected to rule in the upcoming fall on whether certain decisions have gone too far.
In a separate federal case regarding the Oregon measure, a judge ruled in July that it did not violate the U.S. Constitution. U.S. District Judge Karin J. Immergut appeared to consider the Supreme Court’s directive to examine the history of gun regulations. She argued that large-capacity magazines are not commonly used for self-defense and therefore not protected by the Second Amendment. She also found the permit-to-purchase provision to be constitutional, stating that it allows governments to ensure that only law-abiding citizens have access to firearms.
The plaintiffs in the federal case, which includes the Oregon Firearms Federation, have appealed the ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Ten states, including Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island, have similar permit-to-purchase laws to Oregon. Additionally, eleven states and Washington, D.C. restrict large-capacity magazines holding more than 10 rounds, including California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Washington, Illinois, and Vermont. It’s important to note that the bans in Illinois and Vermont apply to long guns.