Oregon judge suspends anti-gun law for infringement on ‘right to bear arms’

An Oregon state judge Tuesday suspended a recent anti-gun measure for its violation of constitutional rights. Ballot Measure 114, passed last month by 50.7% of voters, bans magazines with more than ten rounds and requires a permit to purchase a firearm. 

Oregon law enforcement officials came out against the measure, saying they don’t have the funds, personnel nor infrastructure to create such a program. 

But that’s not why Harney County Judge Robert Raschio placed a temporary restraining order on the measure. 

“Absent entry of this Temporary Restraining Order, Plaintiffs will be deprived of their right to bear arms pursuant to Or. Const. Art. l, Sec. 27 by being made unable to lawfully purchase a firearm or bear a magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition in the State of Oregon. Deprivation of fundamental constitutional rights for any period constitutes irreparable harm,” the judge wrote in his order. 

Constitutional scholars have pointed out that arguments in favor of gun control because “you don’t need them for hunting” or because “you don’t need them for self-defense" are missing the point of the Second Amendment entirely. The Constitution’s Framers saw guns as having a very different purpose, which was for citizens to have a last line of defense against a tyrannical government. 

Importantly, other Constitutional experts have noted that the Second Amendment does not grant the people the right to bear arms, because it was never the government’s right to bestow. All the government may do – and must do – is ensure that this right “shall not be infringed." 

As Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas opined in New York Rifle Assn. Inc v. Bruen in June:  

We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense.  

New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.