A third lawsuit was filed Thursday against Oregon, challenging the constitutionality of gun restrictions in “Ballot Measure 114” voters narrowly approved.
The ballot measure was approved by approximately 50.7 percent of Oregon’s midterm election voters, according to an OregonLive report. The policies are scheduled to become effective December 8, which is before the election’s certification date.
Ballot Measure 114 requires new firearm purchasers to obtain a permit through state and county law enforcement agencies, take a training course and undergo a background check, according to a KATU report.
It further prohibits magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds with an exception for gun owners who already own larger magazines.
The first legal challenge against the state’s new gun law began Friday with a hearing before a Portland judge for injunctive relief to put the measure on hold. The Oregon Firearms Federation, the Sherman County Sheriff’s Department, and a gun shop owner filed the motion, the report noted.
The next announced litigation, initiated by the Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition and others, was announced Wednesday.
Thursday, the Oregon State Shooting Association, two gun owners, a sporting goods store and the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) entered a third lawsuit.
“Oregon’s Measure 114 is blatantly unconstitutional,” said NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel Lawrence G. Keane in a statement. “The right to keep and bear arms begins with the ability of law-abiding citizens to be able to obtain a firearm through a lawful purchase at a firearm retailer.”
“Oregon has created an impossible-to-navigate labyrinth that will achieve nothing except to deny Second Amendment rights to its citizens,” he continued. “The measure is an affront to civil liberties which belong to People, not to the state to grant on impossible and subjective criteria.”
Oregon’s Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum pleaded against pausing Measure 114, arguing that doing so may lead to unnecessary deaths.
“The deficiencies in this ballot measure cannot go unaddressed,” NRA Oregon state director Aoibheann Cline said. “Forget that it is scheduled to go into effect before Oregon even certifies the election, but it requires potential gun owners to take a class that has yet to be created, at a cost yet to be determined, so that they can obtain a permit that doesn’t actually give them permission to purchase a firearm.”
“In reality, it’s nothing more that an attempt to stifle — if not outright prevent — the purchase of firearms throughout Oregon,” he added.
Residents must receive a permit under the measure, after successfully completing a firearms training course that does not exist currently, the lawsuit notes. If residents may take the course, they would then be required to submit fingerprints and photographs to the sheriff or police chief.
The lawsuit argues Oregon rushed Ballot Measure 114’s implementation with the result that no one will be able to purchase a firearm in the state when the measure becomes effective December 8.
The National Rifle Association is considering a separate legal action to challenge the new gun law, according to a KDRV report.
Scroll down to leave a comment and share your thoughts.