Latest news with #OregonCourtofAppeals
Yahoo
21-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Brickbat: Gunned Down
The Oregon Court of Appeals ruled that Measure 114, a gun control law approved by voters in November 2022, does not violate the state constitution, overturning a lower court's decision that had blocked it. This law aims to reduce gun violence by requiring permits to buy guns and banning magazines holding more than 10 rounds. The appeals court said it fits with Oregon's history of reasonable gun rules. Plaintiffs vowed to appeal the decision to the Oregon Supreme Court. In a separate federal case, a judge also upheld the law, saying it does not violate the Second Amendment. The plaintiffs in that case also plan to appeal. The post Brickbat: Gunned Down appeared first on
Yahoo
12-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Oregon gun control law is constitutional, according to state appeals court
PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) – A controversial gun control law has been deemed constitutional in the Oregon Court of Appeals, effectively lifting the hold on gun safety protections in the state. Oregon voters , but it was quickly placed on hold due to a that the law violated the state constitution. Measure 114, , requires that someone must have a permit as well as a completed criminal background check before buying a gun. In order to receive a permit, one must complete a gun safety course and prove that they are not a danger to themselves or others. Search ends for Dane Paulsen after volunteer diver recovers body The law also limits the legal magazine capacity to 10 or fewer rounds — though there are exceptions for police and the military. According to Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, this change is long overdue. '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.' Close Thanks for signing up! Watch for us in your inbox. Subscribe Now The law is expected to go into effect in 35 days. However, the law's challengers — including the Gun Owners of America — can further appeal the law by bringing it to a federal court. More to come, stay with KOIN 6 News as this story develops. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Associated Press
12-03-2025
- Politics
- Associated Press
Oregon appeals court says voter-approved gun law is constitutional, reversing lower court ruling
SALEM, Ore. (AP) — An Oregon appeals court on Wednesday found that a gun control law approved by voters over two years ago is constitutional, reversing a lower court ruling from a state judge who had kept it on hold. The law, one of the toughest in the nation, requires people to undergo a criminal background check and complete a gun safety training course in order to obtain a permit to buy a firearm. It also bans high-capacity magazines holding more than 10 rounds. Measure 114 has been tied up in state and federal court since it was narrowly approved by voters in November 2022. It was among the first gun restrictions to be passed after a major 2022 U.S. Supreme Court ruling changed the guidance judges are expected to follow when considering Second Amendment cases. A state judge in rural southeastern Oregon temporarily blocked the law from taking effect after gun owners filed a lawsuit claiming it violated the right to bear arms under the Oregon Constitution. Circuit Court Judge Robert S. Raschio then presided over a 2023 trial in Harney County and ruled that the law violated the state constitution. The Oregon attorney general's office appealed the ruling. In their Wednesday opinion, a three-judge panel of the Oregon Court of Appeals found that the law's permit-to-purchase program and high-capacity magazine ban do not 'unduly frustrate' the right to armed self-defense under the state constitution. The attorney general's office said the law won't go into effect immediately, as those challenging the law have 35 days to seek further appellate review. Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield welcomed the ruling. 'Oregonians voted for this, and it's time we move ahead with common-sense safety measures,' he said in a statement. Tony Aiello Jr., the lead counsel representing the gun owners in the case, said he intends to appeal the ruling to the Oregon Supreme Court. In a statement Wednesday, he said Measure 114 'has turned millions of Oregonians into criminals because their right to bear arms has been erased by Oregon's Judiciary.' In a separate federal case over the measure, a judge ruled it was lawful under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The plaintiffs in that federal case, which include the Oregon Firearms Federation, appealed the ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Yahoo
12-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
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@ or on Twitter @DianneLugo This article originally appeared on Salem Statesman Journal: Oregon Court of Appeals rules Measure 114 is constitutional
Yahoo
27-01-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
County questions constitutionality of term limits for commissioners
UNION COUNTY — Are term limits for county commissioners legal under the Oregon Constitution? This is the question the Union County Board of Commissioners wants to bring before the court. Commissioners are limited to two terms, but the legality of term limits have been challenged in other parts of the state. ' What we're looking at here is whether or not the county wants to take any action to remove that potential prohibition for county commissioners going forward,' county counsel Wyatt Baum said during the regular session meeting Jan. 22. Residents brought forward an initiative petition in 2017 that proposed limiting commissioners to two terms. The county board of commissioners adopted that under Ordinance 2017-01. Baum explained that around the time term limits were implemented locally a similar ordinance was challenged elsewhere in the state. Former Douglas County Commissioner Susan Morgan brought the lawsuit after the county clerk's office refused to allow her to file for a third term, according to reporting at the time by The News Review. In 2018 the Oregon Court of Appeals upheld the 2016 Douglas County Circuit Court's decision, which found the term limits unconstitutional. The Oregon Constitution outlines the necessary qualifications for every county officer. The state constitution says every count officer must be an elector of the county. It goes on to say that other qualifications may be prescribed by law for the county assessor, county sheriff, county coroner and county surveyor. The News Review reported Presiding Judge Rex Armstrong said in the appeals court decision this means counties do not have the power to add qualifications, including term limits, for commissioners. 'It overturned limitations, essentially saying that is impermissible restriction on a qualification of a county commissioner under the Oregon Constitution,' Baum said. However, Baum told the county board the court's decision only overturned the limitation in Douglas County. It did not overturn term limits statewide and many ordinances remain on the books across the state that impose term limits for county commissioners. The commissioners have a few choices, Baum said. The county could wait until a sitting commissioner decided to run for a third term. When this happens it would be up to the county clerk to bring the issue before the Union County Circuit Court where a judge would determine whether or not the limitations on term limits is legal. However, Baum said a more proactive option would be for the county to petition the court for the validation of a legal government action, which asks the court to rule on the issue. ' The court's ability to hear it once somebody runs is going to be very limited and that's going to slow things down,' Baum said. 'But if you did it now, you'd be able to get ahead of whether or not anybody in the future wants to run to address this issue.' Union County commissioners for the 2024-25 fiscal year receive a salary of $83,316. Commissioners also receive health insurance, money for a retirement fund and other benefits. Commissioners Matt Scarfo and Paul Anderes are nearing the end of their second terms. While Anderes said he has no plans to run for the seat again, Scarfo expressed interest in another term. ' I would definitely like to see a third term,' he said. ' Two terms is definitely not enough in this position.' Scarfo said he's been working to acquire funding from the Legislature for the Union County Fairgrounds water and wastewater infrastructure project for the past seven years. Commissioner Jake Seavert said he is not against term limits in general, but as someone who recently stepped into the position, he understands it takes time to learn the intricacies of how Union County operates. Commissioners unanimously voted to bring the issue before the courts to determine the legality of the ordinance. ' Any parties that object to it will have the opportunity to come in before the judge and make that argument also,' Baum said.
