PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) — One week before Oregon’s new gun control law takes effect, two new lawsuits have been filed against it.
This brings the total legal challenges to three against Measure 114, which is scheduled to go into effect on Dec. 8.
All three are filing second amendment challenges, but two lawsuits are challenging measure 114’s 10-round magazine capacity. The other is going right after the permitting system of Measure 114, saying the system and classes are not set up yet so it should not go forward.
“It requires potential gun owners to take a class that has yet to be created, at a cost yet to be determined,” said NRA Oregon director Aoibheann Cline. “In reality, it’s nothing more than an attempt to stifle, if not outright prevent, the purchase of firearms throughout Oregon.”
Professor Norman Williams, Director of the Center for Constitutional Government at Willamette University, said he understands why there has been a backlash against the gun control measure.
“In reality, it’s nothing more than an attempt to stifle — if not outright prevent — the purchase of firearms throughout oregon,” he said. “I’ll be surprised if the federal government allows Measure 114 to go into effect next week.”
Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum has said she will defend Measure 114 in the first suit, which has a hearing on Friday. Legal experts said the magazine limit could be struck down, and the permitting portion will likely be delayed with the process in place.
“I think the real problem for the federal court tomorrow (Dec. 2) and the problem for the state of Oregon are the questions about how soon you can start up the permitting process,” said Professor Norman Williams, director of the center for constitutional government at Willamette University. “How soon can you start up the training programs that are required by the permitting process? I’ll be surprised if the federal government allows measure 114 to go into effect next week.”
The first lawsuit, brought on in part by the Oregon Firearm Federation, claims that a magazine limit prohibits law-abiding citizens from having the ability to defend themselves.
Rosenblum rebutted that in her legal response, citing another court’s decision which found that “large-capacity magazines provide significant benefit to soldiers and criminals who wish to kill many people rapidly” but have “little to no usefulness in self-defense.”