OPINION: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.
Oregon Democrats just got smacked by a judge who froze the state’s gun control law because it could violate “fundamental Constitutional rights.” The new law made it tougher to purchase firearms and banned the sale of any magazine that could hold more than 10 bullets, the Oregon Capital Chronicle reported.
“Absent entry of this Temporary Restraining Order, Plaintiffs will be deprived of their right to bear arms pursuant to Or. Const. Art. l, Sec. 27 by being made unable to lawfully purchase a firearm or bear a magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition in the State of Oregon. Deprivation of fundamental constitutional rights for any period constitutes irreparable harm,” Harney County Judge Robert Raschio said in his order.
Gun Owners of America Senior Vice President Erich Pratt, whose group challenged the law in court, celebrated the decision.
“This is an exciting victory for our members in Oregon as the clock was winding down on securing relief from the onerous and unconstitutional requirements this law would have placed on current and future gun owners. We look forward to continuing the fight,” he said.
“We are grateful to Judge Raschio for his swift response to our request for a TRO on this draconian law, and we are fully prepared to continue the process as we request a preliminary injunction at our hearing next week. Like we have been warning anti-gun activists and politicians since the Bruen decision, fall in line with this precedent, or we will make you.” Sam Paredes said on behalf of the group’s Board of Directors.
Kristina Edmunson, a spokeswoman for Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum, said that they would appeal the decision to the state Supreme Court.
“We are still sorting through everything, but I can tell you we will be shortly filing a mandamus petition asking the Oregon Supreme Court to review it immediately,” she said.
True to their word the office announced that it had filed for the state Supreme Court to hear the case.
“Following yesterday’s decision by Judge Robert Raschio in Harney County to prevent enforcement of Ballot Measure 114, the Oregon Department of Justice today filed a mandamus petition asking the Oregon Supreme Court to review the decision immediately. The gun safety law, approved by the voters last month by way of the initiative petition process, was originally set to go into effect tomorrow (Thursday), but the ruling in Harney County currently puts a stop to that,” the office said.
“There are several cases pending that have challenged the new law. In contrast to the Harney County state court ruling, in a separate case, US District Court Judge Karin Immergut yesterday denied a request by the Oregon Firearms Federation and other plaintiffs to temporarily prevent implementation of the large-capacity magazine restrictions of Measure 114. If not for Judge Raschio’s ruling, those restrictions would have gone into effect tomorrow, along with the fix for the “Charleston loophole”– a federal loophole that allows gun transfers to proceed if background checks cannot be completed quickly,” it said.
“We strongly disagree with the decision of the Harney County Circuit Court. Our mandamus petition to the Oregon Supreme Court gives our highest state court the opportunity to weigh in now and reverse the Harney County judge’s ruling. Magazine capacity restrictions and permitting requirements have a proven track record: they save lives! We are confident the Oregon Constitution—like the Second Amendment of the U.S. constitution—allows these reasonable regulations,” the attorney general said.
Judge Immergut’s decision was based on the federal Constitution, but Judge Raschio’s decision was based on the state Constitution, which is why it remains in effect.
“The burden imposed by Measure 114 on the core Second Amendment right of self-defense is minimal,” Judge Immergut said in her decision.
“In light of the evidence of the rise in mass-shooting incidents and the connection between mass-shooting incidents and large-capacity magazines — and absent evidence to the contrary regarding the role of large-capacity magazines for self-defense — Defendants are comparably justified in regulating large-capacity magazines to protect the public,” she said.
