The Oregon Supreme Court on Thursday questioned whether the historical presence of guns in the state could usurp the public safety concerns justifying a voter-approved law that prevents sale or transfer of magazines with more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
The hearing marked the culmination of arguments over Measure 114, which a narrow majority of Oregon voters approved in 2022. Advocates from both sides of the ongoing fight to implement one of the nation’s most stringent gun control provisions filled the courtroom in Salem.
Along with banning high-capacity magazines, Measure 114 requires completed background checks, permits and firearm safety training before purchasing guns. But the law still hasn’t taken effect because it promptly drew legal challenges in both state and federal courts.
While a federal judge ruled in 2023 that the law is allowed under the U.S. Constitution, an Eastern Oregon Circuit Court judge blocked it from taking effect in late 2022 and determined it was unconstitutional in November 2023. The Oregon Court of Appeals disagreed with that Harney County judge’s ruling, and the state Supreme Court will determine whether the circuit judge or appeals court came to the right conclusion.
The delay left a multi-million dollar permitting system by Oregon State Police in limbo. Oregon lawmakers also paused implementation of the law until March 2026 to allow time to resolve any remaining legal questions.
On Thursday, the seven-justice panel questioned attorneys representing gun owners and the state about the historical presence of high-capacity weapons in Oregon and the extent to which they needed to take a different approach to the case than lower courts.
Attorney Tony Aiello Jr. sought to convince the court that the restrictions were too broad to stand because they don’t specifically address dangerous uses of firearms or restrict access to people found guilty of serious crimes. The plaintiffs in his case are two Harney County gun owners, who persuaded a judge on the Harney County Circuit Court to strike down the law on the grounds that it violated Oregon’s Constitution, which states Oregonians shall “have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves.”
The justices on Thursday pressed for answers on cost and access to permits and required training, which guns were available during the state’s founding and whether the court could uphold the law without delving into a historical analysis.
“The Court of Appeals seems to have taken the approach that none of these facts matter because if it’s a reasonable regulation for public safety reasons, that’s enough,” said Justice Christopher L. Garrett. “Can we get out of the case quite that easily, or do we need to look at the historical record about the degree to which these types of magazines may have been known to the drafters?”
“You can get out of the case that easily,” replied Robert Koch, a senior assistant attorney general for the Oregon Department of Justice.
During the hearing, Aiello pointed to expert testimony during trial which suggested that since the 1850s there was “a plethora of arms that were developed that could carry 10 rounds or more.” Koch, however, said they were not commonly used at the time and have since advanced technologically to be used for purposes other than self-defense. He pointed to the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, when a gunman used dozens of rounds of ammunition with high-capacity magazines to kill 60 people.
“Six to eight sounds to me like it would go that these are protected weapons in the first instance historically,” Chief Justice Meagan Flynn told Koch. “But in your, as I understand, test, they can be completely banned for the purposes of public safety and it’s not unduly frustrating self-defense?”
Activists, opponents of Measure 114 seek end to legal saga
Faith-based groups and other supporters of gun control pressed for years to pass regulations like those included in Measure 114. They note the stories of Oregonians who have lost family due to suicide and studies showing a decrease in deaths in states with high-capacity magazine bans.
Supporters in the courtroom Thursday included 65-year-old Eugene resident McKay Sohlberg, who said her husband struggled with depression and died by suicide in 2011 after buying a gun from a local sporting goods store. The permit process and training classes could have stopped that from happening, Sohlberg said.
“To watch this being argued and to see it held up when it was voted in by the voters, and to personally know families that have joined our family and my community, there’s just no words,” she said.
In a brief interview after the hearing, Aiello said the justices asked the right questions. He said he was hopeful the justices would agree with his argument that the state’s law goes beyond regulating the “manner of use” or “manner of possession” of firearms.
“The state doesn’t have a historical argument,” Aiello said. “It has a public safety one.”
The arguments over the historical tradition of gun rights also echo national debates over gun control restrictions in the wake of a 2022 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, in which the conservative majority found that Second Amendment cases must consider “the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
However, the Oregon Supreme Court case involving Measure 114 did not turn on the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. A case in federal court challenging Measure 114 on those grounds has been on hold in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, while a challenge to California’s high-capacity magazine ban proceeds. Court observers in recent weeks have said they expect to know soon whether the U.S. Supreme Court will take up the California case.
