the epoch times

Oregon gun law cleared federal trial, now in state court.

Months after Federal Judge Declares Oregon’s New Gun ‍Control Measure ‌Constitutional, Fate of‍ Law Hangs‍ in Balance

In a highly anticipated trial that ‌began on September 18th in Harney County, the constitutional validity of ⁢Measure 114, Oregon’s controversial gun control law, is being ⁢put to the test. The trial, presided over by Circuit Judge Robert S. Raschio, is ⁤scheduled to last six days ‌and will ‍determine whether the ⁢law violates⁤ the ⁤Oregon Constitution.

Last​ year, the measure ⁤received approval from 50.7 percent of Oregonians, making⁣ it⁢ a hotly debated topic.

Related Stories

The measure,​ if upheld, would require Oregonians‌ to undergo background checks and complete a firearms class ⁤in ‌order to obtain ⁢a permit for ‌purchasing ‍firearms. Additionally,‌ it would⁣ ban magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds.

Gun rights advocates argue​ that this law is one of the most⁤ extreme ⁢in ⁢the country, claiming it infringes on ‍the constitutional right to bear arms.

Limiting the Scope

In a pre-trial hearing on ⁢September 14th, ‍Judge Raschio narrowed the focus of the state‍ trial.⁢ He excluded certain testimonies related to gun violence, self-defense⁢ situations, and‌ treating gunshot victims, stating that the ⁣court’s purview is solely to determine the constitutionality of Measure 114.

David v.⁢ Goliath

Representing the plaintiffs, private gun‌ owners Joseph ‌Arnold and Cliff Asmussen, are two small-town​ attorneys. On the defense side, ⁢nine attorneys, including Governor Tina Kotek and Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum, are representing the State of ⁤Oregon.

Plaintiffs’ attorney Tony Aiello, Jr. argued ‌that the case is not‌ about‌ public ⁢health or safety, but rather about the ‌individual’s right to self-defense against the power of the state⁣ government. He emphasized ​that the law would require a government-issued permit to​ purchase a firearm, which he ‍believes infringes on personal freedoms.

On the other hand, defense attorney Anit Jindal ‌argued⁣ that Measure 114 is a reasonable response to public safety ⁢concerns and ‍is⁣ consistent with the historical exercise of the right to bear arms.

Plaintiffs Witnesses

During ​the trial, the plaintiffs⁣ called witnesses,‍ including firearms and self-defense ​trainer ‌Derrick LeBlanc and firearms ‍historian Ashley Hlebinsky.⁣ However, the defense​ challenged‍ the credibility of ⁣these witnesses, claiming bias and lack of expertise.

Despite objections, Judge ⁢Raschio allowed Ms. Hlebinsky to testify, stating that her qualifications as ⁢an ⁣expert in firearms are comparable to a‍ bachelor’s or master’s degree.

The trial is expected to continue for several more⁢ days, with both ⁣sides presenting⁣ their arguments ‍and evidence. The⁢ outcome will‌ have significant implications for gun control‌ laws​ in Oregon.

If the state⁢ court ⁢declares Measure 114 unconstitutional, the Oregon Department of Justice has indicated that it ⁢will appeal the​ decision.

‌What arguments ​are presented by the defense against Measure 114?

Ing, Judge Raschio outlined the scope of ⁢the trial, stating that it⁤ would focus solely on whether Measure 114 violates the state⁢ constitution. This decision was made to narrow the focus of the case and avoid a broader debate on the merits of gun control⁣ laws​ in‍ general. The judge’s aim is‌ to determine whether the measure infringes on the rights‍ guaranteed to Oregon citizens under the state constitution.

The⁤ defense argues that Measure 114 goes beyond what⁤ is necessary to protect public safety and that it unfairly restricts the rights‍ of law-abiding citizens. They contend that background checks and firearms classes already exist in Oregon, and this measure is unnecessary and burdensome.

On⁣ the other side, supporters of the​ law ⁢argue that it ⁤is a responsible measure aimed at reducing gun violence and protecting‌ Oregonians. They believe that the restrictions imposed by the⁢ measure are necessary to ensure that firearms do not end up in ​the wrong hands.

Judge’s ⁢Previous Ruling

In a related case ​earlier‌ this year, Judge Raschio ruled that Measure 114 was constitutional under the ​Oregon Constitution. This ruling was met with both praise and criticism, with supporters of the measure hailing it as a victory for gun control advocates, while opponents vowed to continue fighting the law.

However, it is ‌important to note that the ruling in that case was based on the state constitution ⁣and‍ did not address any​ potential violations of the⁤ United States Constitution.

The High Stakes

The outcome of this trial has significant ⁢implications ‍for both gun control advocates and ​opponents in Oregon and beyond. If the ​measure is upheld, it ​could set a precedent for stricter gun ​control measures in other ⁢states, while a ruling against ​the​ measure‍ could embolden those opposed to such regulations.

Additionally, the outcome ‍of this trial could also impact future legal challenges to gun control laws‍ at both the state and federal levels. It ‍could⁣ shape the arguments and ‌legal strategies employed by both sides in‍ future cases.

Conclusion

The ⁤trial regarding ⁣the constitutionality​ of Oregon’s Measure​ 114 is a highly significant⁢ case that will have far-reaching implications.‌ Both sides present compelling arguments,​ and the‍ judge’s ultimate decision will shape the⁣ future of gun control laws in Oregon and potentially across the ‍nation. With the trial scheduled to last six days, the ⁢coming ⁣days will provide ⁣crucial insights into the fate of this ‌controversial⁢ law.



" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button
Close

Adblock Detected

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker