By Dave Workman
Editor-in-Chief
When Oregon anti-gunners calling themselves “Lift Every Voice Oregon” launched an initiative campaign to create the most restrictive gun control law in recent memory, they got help from big money donors yet barely eked out a victory with the final vote tally at 50.6 percent for and 49.4 percent against.
But before the law requiring training and permits to purchase firearms, and a ban on ammunition magazines holding more than 10 cartridges, could take effect, Measure 114 attracted four federal lawsuits and one state court challenge which could ultimately doom all or at least parts of the legislation.
It is yet another example of wealthy elitists bankrolling a public vote on a constitutionally-enumerated right, an argument that seems to fall on deaf ears when guns are the issue. Even Oregon Live called it “one of the strictest gun control measures in (the) U.S.”
The major issues are:
Background checks: Measure 114 essentially is written to make such checks open-ended, critics argue. That is, under current federal law, the National Instant Check System (NICS) has a maximum of three days to conduct and respond to a check. At the end of that period, the dealer has the option of completing the transaction, though it is not required. Under Measure 114, according to critics of the initiative, that “safeguard” is eliminated and the State Police can essentially drag their feet. There is currently a backlog of thousands of background check requests to complete firearms sales initiated prior to the Dec. 8 effective date of the measure.
Training: To buy a gun under Measure 114, the prospective purchaser must show proof of safety training. No law enforcement agency in the state is currently set up to provide such training, and range facilities are also not available everywhere.
Permit to purchase: Before an Oregon citizen can buy a gun, he/she must first obtain a permit to purchase from a local law enforcement agency. Critics say this is clearly unconstitutional.
Magazine ban: The future purchase, manufacture or importation of magazines that hold more than ten cartridges is prohibited. This issue is already being addressed by a California lawsuit now before the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The battle has attracted virtually every major gun rights organization in the country to one degree or another.
The Oregon Firearms Federation (OFF), which led the opposition to this gun control law, was first to file a federal lawsuit. It was filed in U.S. District Court in Portland.
A few days later, the Second Amendment Foundation filed the first of two lawsuits in the same federal court. SAF was joined by the Firearms Policy Coalition, G4 Archery, Grayguns, Inc. and a private citizen, Mark Fitz. This complaint focused on the magazine ban part of Measure 114.
Several days later, SAF filed its second federal action against the measure, this one targeting the training/permitting requirement. In this case, SAF was joined by Sportsman’s Warehouse, Inc., the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), Daniel Azzopardi, a private citizen.
Almost simultaneously, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, Oregon Sport Shooting Association and Mazama Sporting goods filed a fourth federal lawsuit. OSSA is a state affiliate of the National Rifle Association, which essentially brings NRA onto the field and they are supporting the lawsuit.
While the attention was on the federal court, the Gun Owners of America came in with a lawsuit filed in Harney County Circuit Court in Burns. This state-level legal action surprised the gun control crowd because it got favorable reception from Circuit Judge Robert Raschio, who has put things on hold at least until Jan. 3.
The situation in Oregon has the earmarks of a long battle that could find its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
OFF founder Kevin Starrett is anticipating a lengthy fight, but he is encouraged by the involvement of the major national gun rights organizations.
