(CN) — A new Oregon law restricting gun use and purchases is constitutional a federal judge ruled Friday.
A month after a bench trial over the legality of Measure 114, U.S. District Judge Karin J. Immergut issued a 122-page ruling addressing two main questions:
First, the judge considered whether Oregon can "limit the number of bullets to ten, that a law-abiding citizen can fire without reloading."
The second question Immergut considered is whether Oregon can require firearm purchasers to obtain a permit that requires the completion of a background check, safety training and a consideration of their mental health.
"Plaintiffs have not shown that the Second Amendment protects large-capacity magazines, defined as magazines capable of firing eleven or more rounds without reloading," Immergut wrote.
"This Court also finds that the text of Oregon’s permit-to-purchase framework is consistent with the type of regulations that the United States Supreme Court has deemed constitutional under the Second Amendment," she added.
The ruling on Friday is already facing fierce criticism from the law's opponents, particularly the plaintiffs of the three cases consolidated in December 2022. The leading case — filed by Oregon Firearms Federation alongside Sherman County Sheriff Brad Lohrey and Marion County resident Adam Johnson — was filed a week after Oregon voters narrowly passed Measure 114 with 50.7% of the vote on Nov. 8, 2022.
The plaintiffs of the federal suit filed against Oregon’s former Governor Kate Brown and Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum claim the new law infringed on their constitutional right to bear arms while violating the Due Process Clause by criminalizing the possession of magazines that were legal when acquired.
Immergut, however, wrote that even if the Second Amendment protected large-capacity magazines, she agreed with state attorneys that Oregon’s restrictions on using and possessing large-capacity magazines are consistent with the United States' history and tradition of firearm regulation.
“Finally, this court finds that Oregon’s large-capacity magazine restrictions are not an unconstitutional taking of property, are not unconstitutionally retroactive and are not unconstitutionally vague,” Immergut wrote. “Accordingly, this court enters judgment for defendants and intervenor-defendant on all of plaintiffs’ claims.”
A statement posted on the Oregon Firearms Federation website on Friday said that the judge “ruled against gun owners, the Second Amendment and a basic understanding of the English language."
“The decision is 122 pages and we just received it, so we have not had time to analyze it in depth,” the organization wrote. “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.”
But while Immergut’s order settles the federal claims over the contentious measure, the law is still on hold due to a temporary restraining order handed down by Harney County Judge Robert S. Raschio last December. That case, filed by the Gun Owners of America and the Gun Owners Foundation, is set for trial in September and will determine whether Measure 114 violates Oregon’s Constitution by banning firearms present during the ratification of the state’s Constitution.
“For now, Measure 114 remains on hold due to a state court order from Harney County. But our team looks forward to ultimately prevailing in the state courts as well,” the Oregon Attorney General's office said in a statement.
Follow @alannamayhampdx
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
