Late on a Friday afternoon, on a hot summer day, Judge Karin Immergut of the Oregon District of US Circuit Court handed down a long-anticipated decision on Ballot Measure 114 -- which bans "large capacity magazines" and requires citizens to acquire a permit to acquire a firearm. The decision will almost certainly be appealed to the 9th Circuit.

During the trial several witnesses pointed out that the ban is actually on virtually all ammunition magazines because most can easily be converted to hold more than 10 rounds no matter how many they held when they came from the factory. Adam Johnson, a firearm’s dealer and defensive tactics instructor, pointed out that these modification can be done with nothing more than a screwdriver or pointed object. Immergut ruled that it was not her court’s responsibility to address that saying "Whether a ten-round magazine with the baseplate removed would violate BM 114 is not for this Court to decide. This Court need not parse every potential hypothetical scenario to find what is generally prohibited under BM 114."

As many predicted, it upheld the legality of Measure 114. The Measure passed in the November 2022 with 975,862 yes votes and 950,891 no votes, a margin of 50.65% to 49.35% -- hardly a landslide in anyone's book.

According to some, Judge Immergut, a Trump appointee, shows a lack of first-hand knowledge of firearms. Ballot Measure 114 defines a Large Capacity Magazine as "Magazines over 10 rounds or readily modifiable to exceed 10 rounds." A study done by the Policing Institute revealed that in 1,180 officer involved shootings, police fired an average of 7.59 rounds and often exceeded 10 rounds. Though the ban doesn't apply to law enforcement, it shows that firing multiple rounds is not uncommon, even for trained law enforcement.

Immergut also appears to have completely ignored the Supreme Court’s direction in the landmark case NYSRPA vs Bruen, where they rejected the “two-part” analysis of gun laws, essentially saying that if a law violates the Second Amendment, it is unconstitutional period and the state’s “public safety interest” cannot be considered.

In her decision Immergut wrote "Defendants’ public safety interest in regulating LCMs is a legitimate legislative purpose. As discussed above, Defendants set forth evidence showing that LCMs are frequently used in the commission of mass shootings and that the use of LCMs in mass shootings increases the lethality of these events.”

Immergut also dismissed the plaintiff’s concerns that because of the way BM 114 was crafted, it is actually impossible to comply with. She wrote in a footnote: " Plaintiffs essentially argue that when BM 114 is implemented, it will operate in such a way that individuals will be unable to receive a permit, due to lack of funding, bureaucratic disorganization, and the refusal of the FBI to process background checks. As this Court has previously held, this evidence goes to Plaintiffs’ unripe as-applied challenge, not their facial challenge. Speculation about how BM 114 might be implemented in the future—including whether the FBI’s refusal to process background checks will in practice prohibit a permitting agent from issuing a permit—is irrelevant to a facial challenge, which looks only at the language of the statute.”

Immergut’s ruling would require that completely new lawsuits would have to be initiated after people attempt to get "permit to purchase" permits and are denied because, as Sherman County Sheriff Brad Lohrey pointed out in his testimony, it is impossible for him issue permits under the measure’s requirements.

Judge Immergut doesn't see a problem with the restriction.

The Supreme Court has held that Second Amendment protects an individual right to self defense inside and outside of the home. Large Capacity Magazines are not commonly used for self-defense, and are therefore not protected by the Second Amendment. Even if LCMs are protected by the Second Amendment, BM 114’s restrictions are consistent with this Nation’s history and tradition of regulating uniquely dangerous features of weapons and firearms to protect public safety. This Court accordingly enters judgment in favor of Defendants and Intervenor-Defendant on Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment challenge to BM 114’s LCM restrictions.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Oregon Firearms Federation Director Kevin Starrett was critical of the decision, saying, "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. When faced with the clear and undeniable issues about all magazines being banned and the permit system being completely unworkable, she essentially said 'not my problem.'"


--Staff Reports

Post Date: 2023-07-15 11:07:46

Last Update: 2023-07-16 12:41:07