HARNEY COUNTY, Ore. — A trial to decide if Oregon’s new gun control legislation is constitutional finished Monday, with lawyers presenting closing arguments. A Harney County judge said he'll share his decision in the coming weeks.
Last November, voters narrowly passed Measure 114 — a set of gun control reforms that includes requiring a permit to buy a gun, expanded background checks and banning large-capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.
Since then, Measure 114 has been stalled by legal challenges, both at the state and federal level.
Earlier this year, a federal judge ruled Measure 114 is lawful under the U.S. Constitution, finding that large-capacity magazines are not commonly used for self-defense and a permit-to-purchase system is constitutional. That ruling is being appealed.
In court Monday, lawyers debated the right to bear arms and the merits of additional regulation.
“If a right can be taken away simply because it furthers public safety in some way, it’s not a right at all," said an attorney representing gun owners, the plaintiffs in the case. "There are still Oregonians that are willing to go to bat for those rights in court against the might of the state."
Oregon Department of Justice defense attorneys argued in favor of Measure 114 and the ways it is intended to improve public safety.
"The public had a valid public safety purpose in passing Measure 114, and the large capacity magazine restriction also does not unduly burden the right to bear arms," said a defense attorney. "The permit to purchase provisions do not prohibit the acquisition of firearms, they require individuals to exhibit that they’re not a danger to themselves or others."
Harney County Circuit Court Judge Robert Raschio said he was impressed with the arguments from both sides. Raschio also said he was concerned about the ability a police officer would gain to deny someone a gun based on expanded background checks and training courses.
Oregon DOJ lawyers said self-defense standards don't hold up with advances in gun technology.
“The fact that detachable magazines and automatic firing technology were eventually used for civilian purposes cannot, according to the Court of Appeals, bootstrap these weapons into personal defense weapons so that they come under Constitutional protection," they argued.
But the plaintiff's attorney suggested Oregonians would still need the capacity to assist the military under dire circumstances.
"The possibility that Oregon may need her armed citizenry is ever-present in an everchanging and tumultuous world. Oregon being a coastal state is an obvious location for a potential invasion," he said. "This idea is not as outdated as the defense would suggest. The court heard evidence that still today Oregonians are assisting law enforcement."
Raschio said he would legally need to deliver his decision within two months, but hopes to produce it sooner. Any decision is largely expected to face appeals, further delaying any potential implementation of Measure 114.