SALEM, Ore. (AP) — An Oregon appeals court on Wednesday found that a gun control law approved by voters over two years ago is constitutional, reversing a lower court ruling from a state judge who had kept it on hold.
The law, one of the toughest in the nation, requires people to undergo a criminal background check and complete a gun safety training course in order to obtain a permit to buy a firearm. It also bans high-capacity magazines holding more than 10 rounds.
Measure 114 has been tied up in state and federal court since it was narrowly approved by voters in November 2022. It was among the first gun restrictions to be passed after a major 2022 U.S. Supreme Court ruling changed the guidance judges are expected to follow when considering Second Amendment cases.
A state judge in rural southeastern Oregon temporarily blocked the law from taking effect after gun owners filed a lawsuit claiming it violated the right to bear arms under the Oregon Constitution. Circuit Court Judge Robert S. Raschio then presided over a 2023 trial in Harney County and ruled that the law violated the state constitution. The Oregon attorney general’s office appealed the ruling.
In their Wednesday opinion, a three-judge panel of the Oregon Court of Appeals found that the law’s permit-to-purchase program and high-capacity magazine ban do not “unduly frustrate” the right to armed self-defense under the state constitution.
The attorney general’s office said the law won’t go into effect immediately, as those challenging the law have 35 days to seek further appellate review.
Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield welcomed the ruling. “Oregonians voted for this, and it’s time we move ahead with common-sense safety measures,” he said in a statement.
Tony Aiello Jr., the lead counsel representing the gun owners in the case, said he intends to appeal the ruling to the Oregon Supreme Court. In a statement Wednesday, he said Measure 114 “has turned millions of Oregonians into criminals because their right to bear arms has been erased by Oregon’s Judiciary.”
In a separate federal case over the measure, a judge ruled it was lawful under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The plaintiffs in that federal case, which include the Oregon Firearms Federation, appealed the ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
