In less than two weeks, a voter-approved 2022 ballot measure requiring firearm permits and banning magazines with more than 10 rounds of ammunition will face Oregon’s highest court. But even after lawyers from both sides wrap up their arguments, the years-long battle to implement one of the nation’s strictest gun control laws may not be over.
The Oregon Court of Appeals in March upheld the law after a circuit court struck it down in January 2024, offering a win to the many faith-based and anti-gun violence activists behind the measure who sought to highlight the success of such policies in saving lives across the nation. The Oregon Supreme Court agreed in June to take up an appeal of the case and set oral arguments Nov. 6, while Oregon lawmakers moved earlier this year to pause implementation of the measure until March 2026 amid the legal wrangling.
Nationally, however, the U.S Supreme Court in recent years has taken the position of expanding gun rights. In a 2022 decision that found people have the right to carry guns in public for self-defense, the court’s conservative majority wrote that Second Amendment cases must consider “the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
In the case of Oregon, legal experts are less concerned with the Supreme Court’s recent decision to review a federal law barring drug users from owning firearms and a Hawaii law requiring explicit permission for the use of concealed carry on private property. The Trump administration is defending the drug restrictions in court, and Oregon already has a less prescriptive law on the books giving discretion to private property owners to determine their concealed carry restrictions.
Court observers are, however, watching an upheld California law banning high-capacity magazines that was petitioned to the U.S Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to decide soon whether it will hear the California case.
“That would have a much more immediate and on point impact on the Measure 114 litigation,” said Norman Williams, a professor of law at Willamette University.
Defending California’s law in October, California Attorney General Rob Bonta said courts need more time to deal with standards set by rulings like the 2022 Supreme Court decision, which has been criticized by legal scholars for leaving too much “complexity and malleability” to individual judges and courts. Bonta wrote in a court filing that the Supreme Court “would also benefit from awaiting further development in the lower courts of Second Amendment doctrine more generally.”
Meanwhile, Oregon’s high-capacity magazine restrictions in Measure 114 also drew a federal challenge from the Canby-based Oregon Firearms Federation, though another gun rights group has led the charge in state court. After U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut upheld Oregon’s voter-approved law as constitutional in 2023, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals halted proceedings as deliberations over California’s law continued. The federation has also since claimed the Oregon Supreme Court is biased against gun owners, warning that Measure 114 may make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
“I think that (the) Supreme Court already created quite a sweeping order in Bruen,” said Kevin Starrett, the federation’s executive director, in a statement referencing the court’s 2022 decision. “The lower courts have extended a middle finger to the Supremes and gotten away with it so I don’t think anything they decide matters much.”
Measure 114 supporters confident
Supporters of Measure 114 noted that Oregon’s law doesn’t require gun owners who own newly-restricted magazines to return or destroy their violating firearms like California’s high-capacity ban. They point to studies showing a significant decrease in gun deaths because of such laws, as well as agreement among federal appeals courts that such bans are not considered violations of the Second Amendment.
“It’s constitutional to ban large capacity magazines. So the courts are on our side generally, and the consensus is consistent,” said Elizabeth McKanna, the chairwoman of Lift Every Voice Oregon, which wrote the 2022 ballot measure. “I mean, that’s one of the reasons we put it in, is because it seemed like it was generally accepted (and) held constitutional.”
McKanna is doubtful that California’s case will make it to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has declined to take up cases involving similar bans before. If the court were to strike down the law, however, she said the federal case involving Measure 114 could be remanded back to the district court to review “whether it should be applied differently from the way it was applied prior to any decision.”
“I’m probably more capable of tolerating that. Having been in the law for so long, it’s always ‘hurry up and wait,’” said McKanna, a retired attorney. “But for the thousands, the millions who voted for this, it’s frustrating.”
