By Dave Workman
Editor-in-Chief
Attorneys representing gun owners and gun rights groups challenging Oregon Ballot Measure 114 (BM114) have submitted their brief on the merits against that legislation to the Oregon State Supreme Court.
Plaintiffs in the case challenging BM114 are two private citizens, Joseph Arnold and Cliff Asmussen, along with Gun Owners of America and the Gun Owners Foundation. They are represented by attorneys Tony Aiello, Jr. and Tyler Smith at Tyler Smith & Associates in Canby, Ore.
BM 114 is the restrictive law passed by Oregon voters three years ago, and it has been tied up in court ever since.
The 79-page brief—which may be read here—asserts, “BM114 unduly frustrates, burdens, and infringes upon the right to bear arms by banning essential firearms and firearm parts, imposing unjustifiable delays and expenses, and subjecting Oregonians to onerous requirements without adequate procedural protections.”
When Measure 114 passed, it was immediately challenged by virtually every gun rights organization in the country. Lawsuits were filed in federal court as well as state court. The federal actions are currently dragging their feet in the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
But the state-level lawsuit, filed in Harney County Circuit Court, garnered momentum, especially after Circuit Court Judge Robert Raschio said the measure violated the Oregon constitution. That was in November 2023.
It has been a fight ever since, first to the state court of appeals and now to the state high court.
One critical problem with BM114 is that it requires Beaver State gun buyers to first take a safety course and obtain a “permit-to-purchase” from law enforcement. No other constitutionally-enumerated right has such a requirement, and there is no language in the Oregon State constitution which mentions it.
Article 1, Section 27 reads: “The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence (sic) of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power.”
The brief filed with the high court notes, “Requiring Oregonians to obtain government permission before merely obtaining firearms does not restrict any dangerous manner of possession or use. Additionally, the Permit restricts all Oregonians and is not limited to dangerous criminals. At minimum, the firearm training, and so called psychological examination requirements, are unconstitutional.”
Later, the document states, “There is no historical support for requiring that citizens obtain government training before exercising their right to bear arms, nor is there any evidence in the record of threats posed by supposedly untrained individuals. Therefore, the firearm safety training requirement is unconstitutional.”
The state’s brief is due on Sept. 18, and plaintiffs will have until Oct. 9 to file their reply brief. Oral arguments are scheduled in Salem on Nov. 6.
