Oregon Supreme Court Set to Review Controversial Measure 114 Gun Legislation

Background and Passage of Measure 114

Nearly three years have passed since Oregon residents cast their ballots on one of the most contentious ballot measures in recent state history. Measure 114, which emerged on the November 2022 ballot, secured approval through an exceptionally tight race, garnering 50.65% support against 49.35% opposition—a margin that highlighted the deep divisions among voters regarding firearms regulation.

Key Provisions of the Legislation

Permit-to-Purchase Requirements

The legislation establishes a comprehensive permit-to-purchase framework that has drawn significant criticism from gun rights advocates. Under this system, Oregon residents must navigate multiple bureaucratic steps before being eligible to buy firearms. However, critics point to a particularly troubling aspect of the law: even after completing all mandatory requirements, the permit itself provides no guarantee of firearm acquisition rights. The statute explicitly states: "A permit-to-purchase issued under this section does not create any right of the permit holder to receive a firearm."

Universal Background Check Mandate

The measure expands background check requirements to cover virtually all firearm transfers, implementing what supporters characterize as "universal" background checks across the state.

Magazine Capacity Restrictions

Perhaps the most controversial element involves limiting magazine capacity to 10 rounds. This restriction targets what the legislation terms "high-capacity" magazines, despite these accessories being standard equipment for millions of law-abiding Americans. According to legal challenges, approximately 115 million such magazines are currently in civilian possession nationwide, used for legitimate activities including personal protection, competitive shooting, and hunting applications.

Law Enforcement Response and Implementation Challenges

Sheriff Opposition

The measure faced immediate resistance from multiple county sheriffs who publicly announced their refusal to enforce certain provisions. The Linn County Sheriff's Office took a particularly strong stance, releasing a social media statement declaring: "I want to send a clear message to Linn County residents that the Linn County Sheriff's Office is NOT going to be enforcing magazine capacity limits. This measure is poorly written and there is still a lot that needs to be sorted out regarding the permitting process, who has to do the training and what exactly does the training have to cover."

Legal Journey Through the Courts

Initial Injunction

In December 2022, just as the measure prepared to take effect, a district court judge issued an injunction blocking enforcement of the new regulations. This decision temporarily halted implementation while legal challenges proceeded through the judicial system.

State's Appeal Attempt

Following the district court's intervention, then-Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum petitioned the Oregon Supreme Court for immediate review, seeking to override the lower court's restraining order. However, the state's highest court declined to intervene at that stage, allowing the injunction to remain in place.

Rosenblum defended the legislation at the time, stating: "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."

Court of Appeals Reversal

The legal landscape shifted significantly on March 12 of this year when the Oregon Court of Appeals issued a unanimous decision reversing the district court's constitutional finding. The three-judge appellate panel concluded that Measure 114's provisions do not conflict with the Oregon state constitution, clearing the way for potential enforcement.

Current Attorney General Dan Rayfield praised the appellate court's decision, stating: "Oregonians voted for this, and it's time we move ahead with common-sense safety measures. Today's decision is a big step forward for gun safety in Oregon. This measure gives us the tools to make sure gun buyers go through background checks and get proper permits, helping to keep firearms out of the wrong hands and making our communities safer."

Supreme Court Review and Constitutional Questions

Scheduled Oral Arguments

The Oregon Supreme Court has now agreed to hear the case, scheduling oral arguments for November 6. This development provides renewed optimism for gun rights organizations hoping to see the measure permanently invalidated.

Constitutional Framework at Issue

The central legal question revolves around whether Measure 114's requirements violate the firearms protections embedded in Oregon's state constitution. Adopted when Oregon achieved statehood, the relevant constitutional provision declares: "The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defense of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power."

The Supreme Court's interpretation of this language will determine whether the state constitution provides broader or more restrictive protections than federal Second Amendment jurisprudence, potentially setting precedent for future firearms legislation in Oregon.