Oregon gun control law deemed constitutional by Appeals Court

SALEM, Ore. (KATU) — A voter-approved gun control law, Measure 114, is constitutional, according to a ruling by the Oregon Court of Appeals. In its ruling released on March 12, the court said the measure is “constitutional on its face” and reversed the circuit court’s general judgment.

"This decision reverses the judgment from the Harney County Circuit Court, bringing Oregon a significant step closer to implementing the life-saving policies of Measure 114," said Jess Marks with the Alliance for a Safe Oregon.

CONTINUING COVERAGE | MEASURE 114 LAWSUITS AND CASES

A Harney County Judge had found that Measure 114 was unconstitutional, and the case was taken to the Oregon Court of Appeals.

“In sum, we hold that all of Ballot Measure 114 (2022) is facially valid under Article I, section 27, because the law is capable of constitutional application,” the conclusion stated. “We reverse both the general judgment and the supplemental judgment. We remand to the circuit court for the limited purposes of entering a declaratory judgment consistent with this opinion and determining whether the state is entitled to fees or costs. Reversed and remanded.”

In the ruling, the court declared all three aspects of Measure 114 constitutional. According to attorney Nadia Dahab, the court recognized the authority of the people of Oregon to enact reasonable regulations to promote public safety.

Regarding the rules requiring a permit to purchase and background checks, the court ruled that the two requirements are reasonable responses to public safety concerns stemming from dangerous and untrained individuals obtaining and using firearms and firearms used without appropriate firearm safety training. Because the court viewed those aspects of the measure as a reasonable legislative response to promote public safety without burdening the right to bear arms, the court found that those two portions of Measure 114 are constitutional.

The court also ruled that the large-capacity magazine ban is a reasonable legislative response to identified public safety concerns. The court ruled that advancements in firearm technology and the availability of those advancements to the general public have created observable threats to public safety.

The court added that questions about the constitutionality of the measure as it applied to scenarios, such as in rural areas where law enforcement times may be longer or where livestock requires protection from predators, were not before the court at this time.

"We have strong evidence that Measure 114 will save lives," said Marks. "Expert researchers from Johns Hopkins University analyzed the impact of Measure 114 and found that over a 10-year period, it would save 1,000 lives in Oregon, the vast majority of those preventing suicides and homicides"

READ ALSO: Oregonians react to Trump's executive order on gun rights

By finding Measure 110 constitutional, the court will now send the case back to the trial court for entry of a judgment in the state's favor. The losing side of this lawsuit may file an appeal in the next 30 days.

Tony Aiello, Jr., lead counsel for the respondents, said he intends to file an appeal.

"Our hope and expectations that the Oregon Supreme Court will take this case up to clarify article one, section 27 for Oregonians, most importantly, but also lawyers and lower court judges, so that something like this doesn't happen again," said Aiello Jr.

Aiello Jr. said he and his office are disappointed in the court's ruling and that he sees some issues with Oregon's case law.

"My first reaction in reading it is that the trial court, the Oregon court of appeals, plaintiffs, and defendants all cited the same cases and the same quotations from the cases and reached radically different conclusions," said Aiello Jr. "And so when that happens as a lawyer, that's a sign that we have some really bad case law out there."

Regarding the ban on large-capacity magazines, Aiello Jr. said that this ballot measure would make many Oregonians who currently own these magazines criminals overnight.

"Millions of Oregonians because these are standard capacity magazines that come standard with the firearm. They're extremely common," said Aiello Jr. "There's an affirmative defense that is virtually impossible to prove. So, I encourage all Oregonians to consult with a criminal defense attorney if they own these magazines because our current government intends to prosecute Oregonians for this law."

Measure 114 would not go into effect in the near future. With Aiello Jr. and his team planning to appeal, this legal saga will depend on the Oregon Supreme Court. Once the appeal is filed, the Oregon Supreme Court can take several months to decide if it will take the case. If the Supreme Court does not take it, the case will be passed to lower courts, and the injunction on the measure would likely be vacated. If the Supreme Court does take the case, then the injunction that the trial court entered will likely remain in place until the Supreme Court reviews the case and makes its decision.

"In terms of timeline, I think we're still a few months out of knowing exactly which of those two paths the case will take. Whether the Supreme Court will take it or whether it'll sort of let the Court of Appeals decision stand and send it back to the trial court for entry of judgment," said Dahab.

Aiello Jr. said that it is always tough to tell when the courts will decide on taking a case. He had one prior appeal to the Oregon Supreme Court in the past. Aiello Jr. said that in the prior case, he petitioned the court in July, and the Court granted the appeal in January.

"Three to twelve months is kind of what I expect but it's only once they say no or yes and then decide the case that something changes," said Aiello Jr.

You can read the full judgement below:

This is a developing story.