The Evolution Of 114: From Bill To Law

Oregon's Measure 114, a gun control initiative, was projected to pass narrowly after votes were counted beyond Election Day. According to the Secretary of State's office, laws passed via initiative petition go into effect one month after the election. Measure 114 would require a permit to buy a gun, including a photo ID, fingerprinting, and a criminal background check. It also bans the sale of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. However, there has been opposition and legal challenges to the measure, with some Oregon sheriffs refusing to enforce certain aspects and gun rights groups filing lawsuits. The Oregon Supreme Court denied a state Department of Justice petition to throw out a lower court's temporary restraining order, blocking the law from taking effect on December 8, 2022. The future of Measure 114 remains uncertain as legal challenges continue.

Measure 114's high-capacity magazine ban

Measure 114, also known as the Oregon gun law measure, is a ballot initiative that was passed by voters in Oregon during the November 2022 election. The measure introduced significant changes to the state's gun laws, with a focus on strengthening background checks, limiting ammunition magazine capacity, and introducing new requirements for concealed carry permits.

One of the key provisions of Measure 114 is the ammunition magazine capacity limit, which restricts the capacity of ammunition magazines to 10 rounds, with some exceptions for law enforcement and active-duty military personnel. This provision includes a ban on the sale of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, commonly referred to as a high-capacity magazine ban.

The high-capacity magazine ban has been a controversial aspect of Measure 114 and has faced legal challenges. Opponents of the ban argue that it violates the Second Amendment rights of citizens to keep and bear arms. They contend that high-capacity magazines are standard and commonly used for self-defense, and that restricting magazine capacity will not effectively reduce criminal gun abuse.

However, supporters of the ban argue that it is a necessary public safety measure. They point to the fact that high-capacity magazines have been used in some of the deadliest mass shootings in American history, and that restricting magazine capacity could save lives by providing opportunities for escape or intervention during shootings.

The constitutionality of Measure 114, including the high-capacity magazine ban, has been the subject of legal debates and court rulings. In July 2023, a federal judge in Oregon upheld the measure, including the ban, as constitutional. However, the law was temporarily blocked by a state court pending further legal proceedings. The state trial, which began in September 2023, will determine if the Oregon Constitution allows the state to ban high-capacity magazines while considering arguments about the right to bear arms.

While the outcome of the legal challenges remains uncertain, Measure 114, including the high-capacity magazine ban, has sparked intense discussions and highlighted the deep divisions in public opinion on gun control measures in Oregon and across the United States.

The need for a permit to purchase a gun

Measure 114, which was passed in Oregon, states that a permit is required to buy a gun. The measure went into effect on December 8, 2022, one month after the election. The law requires buyers to obtain a permit, expected to cost around $65, and complete an approved firearms safety course. The application process for the permit also involves submitting a photo ID, fingerprinting, and undergoing a criminal background check. Local law enforcement agencies will handle permit applications, while the Oregon State Police will be responsible for conducting background checks.

On the other hand, opponents of gun control measures argue that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms without restrictions. They believe that the permit requirement creates an unnecessary burden on law-abiding citizens who wish to exercise their constitutional right to self-defense. Additionally, they argue that measures like permit requirements and background checks may not effectively prevent criminals from obtaining firearms through illegal means.

The debate surrounding the need for a permit to purchase a gun is complex and deeply rooted in differing ideologies and interpretations of constitutional rights. While some see gun control measures as a way to enhance public safety, others view them as an infringement on their freedoms. This divide highlights the ongoing tension between the desire for increased safety and the protection of individual liberties.

In the case of Measure 114, the law's implementation has already faced legal challenges, with a lawsuit arguing that it violates the Second Amendment. The outcome of this lawsuit will have significant implications for the future of gun control legislation in Oregon and could potentially set a precedent for similar measures in other states.

The right to bear arms

> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

There are two main schools of thought on the amendment's intended scope. The "individual right theory" holds that the Second Amendment grants citizens an individual constitutional right to possess firearms, restricting legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession. On the other hand, the "collective rights theory" argues that the amendment was intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defence, thus not providing an individual right to own guns.

The Supreme Court has played a significant role in interpreting the Second Amendment. In United States v. Miller (1939), the Court adopted a collective rights approach, determining that Congress could regulate certain weapons under the National Firearms Act of 1934. However, in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court struck down a Washington D.C. handgun ban, recognising an individual right for citizens to possess firearms. This was further strengthened in McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), where the Court held that the Second Amendment applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, ensuring that citizens had the right to keep and bear arms for self-defence.

Today, the right to bear arms is recognised in various countries besides the United States, including Albania, the Czech Republic, Guatemala, Mexico, the Philippines, Switzerland, Ukraine, and Yemen. However, the inclusion of this right in written constitutions is uncommon, with a decreasing trend over time. While the right to bear arms is a divisive topic, with ongoing debates about gun control regulations, it remains a fundamental right protected by the Second Amendment in the United States.

The Second Amendment

> "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The Supreme Court initially adopted a collective rights approach in United States v. Miller (1939), determining that Congress could regulate certain firearms under the National Firearms Act of 1934. However, this precedent was challenged in 2008 with District of Columbia v. Heller, where the Court struck down a Washington D.C. handgun ban as a violation of the right to bear arms. The Court detailed the history and tradition of the Second Amendment, proclaiming that it established an individual right for citizens to possess firearms.

In 2010, the Court further strengthened Second Amendment protections in McDonald v. City of Chicago, holding that the amendment applies to the states through the incorporation doctrine. Despite these rulings, questions remain about the specific scope and application of the Second Amendment, with lower courts continuing to grapple with how to interpret and apply these decisions in practice.

In Oregon, Measure 114, a gun control initiative, was projected to narrowly pass after the 2022 midterm elections. This measure includes several provisions, such as requiring a permit to purchase a firearm, imposing safety training and background checks, and banning magazines with over a 10-round capacity. The measure faced legal challenges from gun rights advocates, who argued that it violated the Second Amendment. The lawsuit specifically targeted the magazine capacity portion, claiming that similar firearms with high-capacity magazines are safely possessed by law-abiding citizens in most states. The outcome of this legal challenge remains to be seen, with complex considerations regarding state and individual rights at play.

The Oregon Supreme Court

In December 2022, a month after the law passed, two gun owners in Harney County filed a lawsuit to block it, arguing that it violated the Oregon Constitution's protection of the right to own guns. This led to a Harney County judge issuing a temporary restraining order, preventing Measure 114 from being enforced. The Oregon Supreme Court later denied the state's mandamus petition, an attempt to overturn the restraining order, keeping the measure blocked until a final decision is made on its constitutionality.

While the Oregon Supreme Court's ruling kept Measure 114 from taking effect, the legal battle surrounding it continued. The state appealed the Harney County ruling, leading to hearings in front of the Oregon Court of Appeals, where arguments for and against the measure's constitutionality were presented. The state's attorney defended Measure 114, while gun owners' attorneys challenged it on constitutional grounds.

Frequently asked questions