Oral arguments begin before the Oregon Supreme Court in the challenge to Measure 114—the restrictive gun-control law passed by voters three years ago.
For background, Measure 114 was voted on in November 2022 and passed by a narrow margin of 50.65% to 49.35%. The law includes a very restrictive permit-to-purchase scheme, so-called “universal” background checks, and a 10-round magazine capacity limit.
The permit-to-purchase provision is extremely problematic in that even if Oregon citizens jump through all the required hoops, receiving the permit doesn’t mean they’ll be able to purchase a firearm. The law actually states: “A permit-to-purchase issued under this section does not create any right of the permit holder to receive a firearm.”
As for so-called “high-capacity” magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, such magazines are commonly owned by millions of Americans for all manner of lawful purposes, including self-defense, sporting and hunting. In fact, Americans owned approximately 115 million such magazines as of November 2022, with millions more purchased since then.
In December 2022, just before the measure was set to take effect, a district court judge blocked the law from being enforced. Shortly after, then-state Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum asked the Oregon Supreme Court to step in and allow the law to take effect, but that court declined to overturn the lower court’s decision.
Then, on March 12, 2025, the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the lower court ruling that declared the law unconstitutional. The law remains on hold and has not yet taken effect due to the ongoing legal battle.
Now, after three years, the Oregon Supreme Court has begun hearing oral arguments in the case of Arnold V. Brown. The lawsuit was filed by two Oregon gun owners and national gun rights groups, who appealed the Court of Appeals’ decision to the state’s highest court.
Supporters of the law expect the court to find it constitutional, even though opponents are sure it is unconstitutional.
“It’s constitutional to ban large capacity magazines. So the courts are on our side generally, and the consensus is consistent,” Elizabeth McKanna, the chairwoman of Lift Every Voice Oregon, which wrote the 2022 ballot measure, told oregoncapitalchronicle.com. “I mean, that’s one of the reasons we put it in, is because it seemed like it was generally accepted (and) held constitutional.”
Back in December 2022, Oregon Assistant Attorney General Brian Marshall claimed that if Measure 114 were delayed, people would most certainly die.
“Delaying implementation of this constitutional policy while the merits are litigated would likely result in unnecessary deaths,” Marshall argued in a court brief, adding it would prevent the state from trying to “reduce the risk of a massacre within its borders.”
However, in a subsequent court filing, Marshall had changed his mind. Evidently, unnecessary deaths and massacres were no longer a concern because he asked the judge to delay the law.
Read the full article here