By Dave Workman
Editor-in-Chief
Gun rights organizations involved in various challenges to Oregon’s gun control Measure 114, which was upheld Friday by a federal judge in Portland, are considering their next moves, although the head of the Second Amendment Foundation has already said it will be appealed.
Likewise, Lawrence Keane, senior vice president and general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), told TGM via email, “NSSF respectfully strongly disagrees with the judge’s ruling. Standard-sized magazines chosen by tens of millions of Americans are protected ‘arms’ ‘commonly used’ (‘typically possessed’) for lawful purposes including self-defense, something the court acknowledged in her opinion. NSSF will, of course, promptly appeal.”
Kevin Starrett, head of the Oregon Firearms Federation, said his group’s next move will depend on what SAF and NSSF do, which is now a foregone conclusion.
U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut—a Donald Trump appointee—issued a 122-page opinion July 14 upholding the constitutionality of the restrictive gun control initiative, which was narrowly passed last November 50.6% to 49.4%. It has not yet been implemented because of the four federal challenges and one continuing state court challenge in Harney County Circuit Court, where Judge Robert Raschio has set a September court trial.
Between now and then, federal appeals to the 9th U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco are likely. SAF is involved in two of those cases. Other players in the federal challenges read like a “Who’s Who” of gun rights organizations, involved either directly or indirectly. Organizations including NSSF, OFF, Oregon State Shooting Association (OSSA), Firearms Policy Coalition, are also involved. The National Rifle Association is supporting the OSSA action because the group is an NRA affiliate. At some point, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms will also likely be involved, perhaps with an amicus brief, because it is SAF’s sister organization and OSSA is a state affiliate.
OFF quickly issued a sometimes scathing reaction to Judge Immergut’s ruling, calling it an “absurd decision” and suggesting the judge was “painfully ignorant.”
“The decision is 122 pages and we just received it so we have not had time to analyze it in depth,” OFF said in a statement published online. What we have read defies belief. While not entirely unexpected, Immergut’s ruling is simple nonsense and sure to be overturned at the 9th circuit.”
In her ruling, Judge Immergut wrote some things that may seem to many gun owners as ill-informed. Perhaps the most egregious example was in her closing remarks, where she asserted, “LCMs (“large capacity magazines”) are not commonly used for self-defense, and are therefore not protected by the Second Amendment.”
Many of the most popular semiautomatic pistols today are designed with magazines holding more than 10 cartridges. Such handguns are used every day by armed citizens and law enforcement.
Measure 114 bans so-called “large capacity magazines,” and requires proof of firearms safety training in order to obtain a permit-to-purchase from law enforcement. Challengers contend these all violate the Second Amendment, which protects a fundamental right, not a government-regulated privilege.
In addition to the gun rights organizations lined up against Measure 114, each lawsuit also included individual private citizens and there are at least three retail businesses involved.
