By Dave Workman
Editor-in-Chief
Democrat Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum, declaring a decision by Harney County Circuit Judge Robert S. Raschio that found gun control Measure 114 unconstitutional was “wrong,” has vowed to appeal, but in the meantime, Beaver State gun owners are elated.
The ruling may be read here.
However, Kevin Starrett, head of the Oregon Firearms Federation, said the fight is far from over. An appeal—considering the makeup of the state Court of Appeals—could reverse Raschio, and then the case would go to the state Supreme Court. In an alert to his members, Starrett observed, “While this good news buys us time, there is no doubt that the state is already working on an appeal to the ruling which will cost Oregon taxpayers even more millions.”
The state-level lawsuit was funded by Gun Owners of America, while several federal challenges now under appeal to the Ninth U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco are backed by several firearms organizations including the Second Amendment Foundation, National Shooting Sports Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition and others.
The measure passed by a paper-thin margin in November 2022, requiring a permit-to-purchase firearms and banning so-called “large capacity magazines” capable of holding more than 10 cartridges.
Judge Raschio handed down his 44-page ruling Tuesday, writing, “The court finds that all semi-automatic handguns and rifles, the most popular forms of firearms for self-defense in country today, are banned under Ballot Measure 114, Section 11.
“The court finds that the large capacity magazine ban effectively bans all firearm magazines fixed or attached which is unconstitutional under any application of said law,” he adds.
“The advocates for Ballot Measure 114 argue in the preamble and in the voters guide that a restraint on the amount of ammunition as the key to preventing mass shootings,” Judge Raschio observed. “Nothing in the preamble, the voters’ guide nor the defendants’ evidence provide a rationale for why the rounds should be limited to ten as opposed to any other arbitrary number that could have been picked nor did they show the limitation of ten rounds has any demonstrable effect on negative outcomes to mass shooting events.
“The proponents claim the delay in reloading can help with individuals getting away from the shooter,” he continues. “Ignoring that the larger the magazine, the higher chance of it jamming according to the testimony, the court finds the time to reload a ten-round magazine into a semi-automatic firearm is negligible at best.”
Raschio notes that 10-round magazine limits “are no panacea to prevent a mass shooter based upon the evidence in this case.”
“A motivated mass shooter could carry well over 100 rounds in 10 separate magazines,” Raschio states, “and readily release a detachable magazine from a firearm and reload in two seconds offering none of the supposed protection promoted in the preamble or voter’s guide for Ballot Measure 114 by banning large capacity magazines. The court can find no scientific or analytical reasoning on this record that a ten-round limitation will increase public safety in any meaningful way.”
Elsewhere, the judge smashes the tenet in Measure 114 requiring a permit-to-purchase.
“The court finds no evidence in the record that public safety is promoted by the permit-to-purchase policy,” he wrote. “The defendant showed there is a harm from gun violence in terms of injuries and deaths, but as stated above provided no evidence the program would help reduce those harms.”
In what amounts to a legal smackdown, Raschio observed, “Oregon citizens have a right to self-defense against an imminent threat of harm, which is unduly burdened by Ballot Measure 114. Three salient facts were agreed upon by the parties at trial: A) Ballot Measure 114 delays the purchase of firearms for a minimum of 30 days; B) the permit-to-purchase program derives its language source in the concealed handgun license statutes; and C) the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) refuses to conduct criminal background checks. The court finds these agreed to facts are fatal to the constitutionality of the permit-to-purchase scheme.”
Judge Raschio’s ruling was critical of testimony from state “experts,” and he waited until near the end of the ruling when he chastised the media for sensationalizing mass shootings.
“The mass shooting events have a significant impact on the psyche of America when they happen,” Raschio wrote. “People tend to believe these events are prolific and happening all the time with massive levels of death and injury. The court finds this belief, though sensationalized by the media, is not validated by the evidence.”
The judge is getting high marks from gun rights activists, including OFF’s Starrett. The ruling goes into detail about firearms, Oregon history, weak evidence presented by state witnesses and why Measure 114 is at odds with Oregon’s state constitution.
Starrett suggested the decision may cause the Democrat-dominated State Legislature may double down in Salem when it reconvenes in February.
