Oregon Court of Appeals rules controversial Measure 114 gun control law is constitutional
The Oregon Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday Measure 114, the gun control law narrowly approved by voters in 2022, is constitutional.
"We conclude that all of Measure 114 is facially constitutional under Article I, section 27," appeals court judges wrote in the opinion released Wednesday morning.
The three-judge panel heard oral arguments around the law in October. The state was challenging a 2023 ruling issued by Harney County Circuit Court Judge Robert Raschio after a six-day trial that declared the gun safety measure unconstitutional.
Measure 114 requires Oregonians to apply for and obtain a permit before purchasing a gun and outlaws large-capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. Permits would require completing a gun safety class and a federal background check first. It has been paused because of court challenges.
Senior Assistant Attorney General Robert Koch referred to Raschio's ruling as an "erroneous evidentiary ruling". He argued that restrictions introduced by the law are permissible because the state constitution allows for reasonable limits.
Attorney Tony Aiello Jr. represented Harney County residents Joseph Arnold and Cliff Asmussen, Oregon gun owners who filed the lawsuit.
Aiello Jr. argued the state already has background checks and the permit to purchase limit in Measure 114 painted all Oregonians as unfit until they prove to the government otherwise. Measure 114 unduly burdens Oregonians, Aiello Jr. argued.
In its 25-page opinion by Judge Darleen Ortega, the Oregon Court of Appeals rejected the argument that the permit to purchase program would cause an at least 30-day delay to purchasing a gun and concluded the program and and point-of transfer background check were "reasonable" responses "to identified public safety concerns," not a total ban on purchasing firearms.
"The plain text of the measure requires the permit agent to act on the application within 30 days of receiving it—which also encompasses the time to get the background check—but nothing in the measure prevents the permit agent from acting sooner when qualifications are met," the opinion said.
Looking at the ban on large capacity magazines, the Court of Appeals also disagreed with the conclusion reached by the Harney County Circuit Court that the ban was a restriction on the use of "nearly any firearms." The limitation does not unduly frustrate the right to armed self-defense guaranteed by the Oregon Constitution, the Court of Appeals opinion said.
"The ban on large-capacity magazines is a reasonable regulation directed at the specific, observable public safety concern that the people of Oregon sought to address," the opinion said.
Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield celebrated the decision in a statement.
'Oregonians voted for this, and it's time we move ahead with common-sense safety measures,' Rayfield said. 'Today's decision is a big step forward for gun safety in Oregon. This measure gives us the tools to make sure gun buyers go through background checks and get proper permits, helping to keep firearms out of the wrong hands and making our communities safer.'
Measure 114 will not immediately go into effect. There are 35 days for plaintiffs to seek further appellate review.
Dianne Lugo covers the Oregon Legislature and equity issues. Reach her at dlugo@statesmanjournal.com or on Twitter @DianneLugo
This article originally appeared on Salem Statesman Journal: Oregon Court of Appeals rules Measure 114 is constitutional
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Bill shielding Oregonians from utility rate increases by Big Tech heads to Kotek
PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) – A bill passed the Oregon legislature on Thursday, aiming to shield Oregonians from taking on increased utility rates from Big Tech facilities in the state. House Bill 3546, known as the Protecting Oregonians With Energy Responsibility (POWER) Act, would hold companies behind facilities such as data centers or cryptocurrency operations, responsible for their own utility bills, If signed into law, the bill would create a separate pricing system for energy users who demand more than 20 megawatts, or roughly the same usage as a small city, according to the Democratic Majority Office. Tillamook opens first owned-and-operated facility outside of Oregon 'Data centers play an important role in our growing technology needs in the United States, and they need to pay their fair share for infrastructure required to meet their energy needs, rather than passing the costs on to residential ratepayers,' said Senator Janeen Sollman (D – Hillsboro, Forest Grove & Rock Creek), a chief sponsor of the bill. 'Large energy users have the potential to place significant strain on the grid, especially in regions where energy capacity is already stretched thin.' 'The cost to serve certain large energy users is spilling on to other ratepayers,' added Rep. Pam Marsh (D – Southern Jackson County), a chief sponsor of the bill in the House of Representatives. 'This bill will help state regulators assign these high costs to the data centers and crypto mining entities that are consuming the energy.' The Democratic lawmakers note that industrial users currently pay about eight cents a kilowatt hour while households are charged more than double the rate at 19.6 cents per kilowatt hour. Close Thanks for signing up! Watch for us in your inbox. Subscribe Now 'The bill helps protect everyday users, like families and small businesses, from paying the costs that big businesses are running up,' said Sen. Deb Patterson (D – Salem), who co-sponsored the POWER Act. 'Household budgets are stretched far enough as they are. They shouldn't be covering corporate costs, too.' The POWER Act passed the Senate in an 18-12 vote on Tuesday, with the Oregon House of Representatives concurring for the bill's final passage on June 5. The bill now heads to Oregon Governor Tina Kotek's desk for signature. When the bill was introduced in the House, Rep. David Brock Smith (R-Port Orford) raised concerns that the bill would discourage tech companies from growing their presence in Oregon. Drug trafficker sentenced to 15 years in prison after largest meth bust in Oregon history In his letter – which was supported by industry advocates such as the Data Center Coalition along with unions IBEW 48, IBEW 280 and UA 290 – Brock Smith said, 'data centers strengthen grid reliability through infrastructure investments and help stabilize residential electricity rates by providing consistent demand. The current proposed legislation, with its misaligned regulations, threatened these widespread community benefits and could discourage future development that supports our digital economy.' The bill comes as large technology companies are facing two growing demands to raise their energy supply for artificial intelligence and data centers, while meeting long-term goals of cutting greenhouse gas emissions, as reported by the Associated Press. AI uses 'vast amounts of energy,' said, noting a 2024 report from the United States Department of Energy estimated that the electricity needed for data centers in the U.S. tripled in the last decade and is anticipated to double or triple again in 2028, when tech companies could consumer 12% of the nation's energy. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Oregon lawmakers hold hearing on Medicaid cuts under Trump's ‘big, beautiful bill'
PORTLAND, Ore. () – As President Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' makes its way through the Senate, Oregon lawmakers held a hearing on Tuesday, detailing the impact proposed Medicaid cuts under the bill could have on Oregon. Republicans' reconciliation bill includes at least $880 billion in spending cuts, largely to Medicaid, to cover the cost of $4.5 trillion in tax breaks, as reported by , noting Republicans are pushing for the spending cuts to root out 'waste, fraud and abuse.' On Tuesday, the Oregon Senate Committee on Health Care held a with representatives from the Oregon Health Authority, health care clinics and health care consumers to learn more about what the cuts to Medicaid could mean for Oregon. FBI: Teen's plan for mass shooting at Washington state mall leads to arrest Emma Sandoe, the Medicaid director for the Oregon Health Authority, was among those who testified at the hearing. According to Sandoe, Congress is mostly addressing spending cuts to Medicaid by aiming to reduce the number of people enrolled in the program. The Oregon Health Plan — Oregon's Medicaid program — insures 1.4 million people in the state, or about 33% of the state's population, Sandoe said. Medicaid covers a variety of services for nearly half of all births in Oregon along with long-term health services and coverage for people with disabilities. Class action lawsuit accuses Grocery Outlet of deceptive pricing in Oregon stores Under the 'big, beautiful bill,' upwards of 100,000 Oregonians could lose Medicaid coverage, according to Sandoe, noting the bill could lead to at least $1 billion in Medicaid cuts to Oregon in the 2027-2029 biennium. Those payments support hospitals, clinics and health care providers. Medicaid cuts in the state would especially harm Oregonians and health care providers in rural counties, Sandoe said. 'For example, in Eastern Oregon, Malheur County for instance, 51% of the population is enrolled in Medicaid. So, providers in those counties rely heavily on Medicaid funding and if those providers aren't able to stay in business, not only does it impact the 51% of people that have Medicaid coverage, it also impacts the 49% of people that rely on other health insurance coverage to see those providers in that area,' Sandoe explained. Close Thanks for signing up! Watch for us in your inbox. Subscribe Now 'When more people have coverage, it's not just good for the people who are enrolled, it is good for the whole system,' Sandoe told the committee. 'People covered are able to treat disease earlier, and providers are able to be paid for the health care services they deliver. This keeps providers in business for everyone.' During Sandoe's presentation to the health care committee, she explained several changes the federal bill would make, including adding new work requirements. The bill proposes requiring states to verify 80 hours of work activities per month for Medicaid applications and renewals twice per year. This would be required for people ages 19-64 in the Medicaid expansion group starting December 31, 2026. For Oregon, this means up to 462,000 Oregonians — many of whom work — could face additional red tape to keep their health care coverage, according to Sandoe, adding that 100,000-200,000 Oregonians could lose Medicaid coverage because of challenges demonstrating that they meet the work requirements. Tillamook opens first owned-and-operated facility outside of Oregon Additionally, the bill would require copays. This would be a change for Oregon, which has not charged copays since 2017, Sandoe explained, noting, 'copays of any dollar amount can be detrimental for Medicaid patients, preventing patients from getting needed medical care or consistent access to their prescription drugs.' The 'big, beautiful bill' also proposes stripping Medicaid funds from Planned Parenthood clinics. According to Sandoe, this could lead to clinic closures in Oregon, noting tens of thousands of people could lose access to birth control, cancer screenings and abortion care provided by Planned Parenthood. The bill would also prohibit Medicaid funds from covering some healthcare services. National Geographic names Oregon Coast train ride among 'dreamiest' for stargazing Today, Oregon law requires the Oregon Health Plan and private health insurance plans to cover medically necessary gender-affirming care. However, the federal proposal would ban Medicaid funding for gender-affirming care for people of all ages and private insurers would no longer be required to cover this type of care – putting access to gender-affirming care at risk for more than 7,000 Oregonians, according to Sandoe. The OHA Medicare director warns these cuts to Medicaid could end up costing taxpayers more in the end. 'When we have instances that providers go out of business or — for example, (federally qualified health centers) or other providers that provide primary care services — then we're not able to do what we do really well in Oregon which is to ensure that we're treating the person early in their health care conditions before it becomes at a stage of needing higher costs and ultimately when a person is sick, they end up using the health care system in some capacity and having that higher cost does cost everyone more if it's uncompensated care.' Drug trafficker sentenced to 15 years in prison after largest meth bust in Oregon history Following the hearing, Committee Chair Deb Patterson (D-Salem) released a statement, saying, 'More than 1.4 million Oregonians have Oregon Health Plan coverage funded by Medicaid, and it's clear from the testimony today that slashing the program will have serious impacts on that population and well beyond. Patterson added, 'Our rural hospitals and clinics will lose funding, decreased staffing could make appointments harder to get, and people who are forced to delay care will face worse health outcomes.' The proposed budget bill passed the House on May 22 and is now being considered in the Senate. President Trump said he wants the bill passed by July 4. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
Leaders speak on ruling that cuts Metro Council in half
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (WKRN) — On Tuesday, the state Court of Appeals found 'the Small Government Efficiency Act' constitutional and House Majority Leader William Lamberth applauded the decision. In 2023, the state legislature passed House Bill 48, which limited the number of metropolitan councilmembers to 20. The law was seen as retribution against Metro Council's decision not to support hosting the 2024 Republican National Convention. Last July, a Nashville court ruled that the law violated the Local Legislation Clause of the Home Rule Amendment to the state constitution. Mayor Freddie O'Connell and Metro Councilmembers celebrated the decision. The ruling prevented the law from going into effect. However, a three-judge panel in the state's Court of Appeals found the law to be constitutional and reversed the lower court ruling, allowing it to go into effect. PREVIOUS: Metro Council could be downsized following latest appeals court ruling Lamberth, who sponsored the House version of the law, added that Republicans would 'continue to cut waste at all levels of government' in a social media post Tuesday. Senator Bo Watson (R-Hixson) also applauded the ruling. '[The] ruling is a win for efficient and effective governing,' Watson said in a statement provided to News 2. 'The law places restrictions on the size of metro government councils and is intended to improve government efficiency – a key focus of conservatives in the Tennessee General Assembly. The Court of Appeals affirmed what we have always believed, that the legislature constitutionally has the authority and responsibility to ensure government continues to best serve Tennesseans.' News 2 spoke with attorney Brandon Smith, currently a partner at Holtzman Vogel and the former chief of staff for Tennessee Attorney General Johnathan Skrmetti, about the decision — and he said he agrees. 'When a city becomes ungovernable and turns to taxpayers for bailouts, someone has to put the brakes on,' Smith said. 'The efficiency found from a smaller council — Nashville's council is currently the third largest in the country, just behind Chicago and New York, and it's been this size since the county was officially consolidated in the early 60s. It's time for some needed change.' As of publication, Metro Council has 35 district members and five at-large members, which boils down to each district representing roughly 20,000 people. Some worry about what cutting that representation in half would look like — especially when considering largely-minority areas. 'I really think it's going to hurt those communities, but it's going to hurt all communities because you're going to have districts that are going to be combined,' Antoinette Lee, Metro Councilmember for District 33, told News 2. 'To me, a plus for Metro — you did not have to be rich or a lawyer or be well-endowed financially to be on the Council because you could work your regular job and you can do this. That is going to be very challenging now with huge areas.' 'Antioch bows to no council member': Some constituents call for Metro Councilmember's resignation following immigration remarks As of publication, Metro Councilmembers get paid $25,000 dollars each year. This move could mean having to pay council members to go full-time to cover larger districts. Vice Mayor Angie Henderson said the math all boils down to how many of the 20 council members will be 'at large.' 'Why this bill was filed at the state and kind of the process that we're going through — I personally feel that the kind of call for efficiency and effectiveness was somewhat specious,' Henderson told News 2. 'I do think it was targeted legislation and that we can't just say by virtue of our size that that's inherently a bad thing.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
