SEATTLE, WA\u2014Pacifica Law Group attorneys Zach Pekelis and Scott Ferron helped secure an important constitutional victory for our client, the Alliance for a Safe Oregon<\/a>, and for the people of Oregon when, on Friday, July 14, a federal court in Portland ruled that Ballot Measure 114 is constitutional. Measure 114, which Oregon voters approved in November 2022, restricts the sale and manufacture of large-capacity gun magazines (LCMs) and establishes a permit system for all firearm purchases.<\/p>\n In her ruling, U.S. District Judge Karin J. Immergut held that the Second Amendment does not protect LCMs, defined as magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, and that Measure 114\u2019s permitting provisions are also constitutional.<\/p>\n Judge Immergut\u2019s 122-page decision<\/a> is the culmination of a six-day bench trial in four cases consolidated under the name Oregon Firearms Federation, Inc. v. Kotek<\/em>, which were filed shortly after voters adopted Measure 114. The plaintiffs included firearms dealers and gun industry organizations, including the Second Amendment Foundation, the Firearms Policy Coalition, and the Oregon State Shooting Association (the NRA\u2019s Oregon affiliate). Pacifica\u2019s client, the Oregon Alliance for Gun Safety (the \u201cOregon Alliance\u201d), is a Portland-based nonprofit gun safety advocacy organization and a leading advocate for Measure 114. In December, the Oregon Alliance intervened in the cases to defend the law. Pacifica attorneys Zach Pekelis<\/a> and Scott Ferron<\/a> tried the case alongside attorneys for the State of Oregon defendants.<\/p>\n During the weeklong trial, Pacifica attorneys:<\/p>\n Judge Immergut did so, ruling that Measure 114 is constitutional. The court\u2019s decision is the first final judgment in any federal case challenging state laws restricting LCMs since the U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s decision last year in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen<\/em><\/a>, which significantly altered the standard governing Second Amendment claims. Applying that standard, which focuses on the Second Amendment\u2019s text and the nation\u2019s historical tradition of firearms regulation, Judge Immergut ruled that LCMs are not \u201cbearable arms\u201d protected by the Second Amendment because they are accessories that \u201care not necessary for firearms to function,\u201d are not in common use for self-defense, and have \u201cuniquely dangerous propensities\u201d and are \u201cclosely related to weapons used in warfare.\u201d The court also concluded that, even if LCMs were protected by the Second Amendment\u2019s text, prohibiting their sale and manufacture is consistent with the nation\u2019s long history of regulating especially dangerous arms and accessories. Judge Immergut found that \u201cmass shootings using LCMs are an unprecedented societal concern,\u201d and that Measure 114\u2019s \u201crestrictions on LCMs impose a minimal burden on the right to self-defense\u201d and are consistent with the Nation\u2019s history and tradition of firearms regulation. Judge Immergut also found that BM 114\u2019s permitting provisions constitute a shall-issue licensing regime.<\/p>\n As to the permit-to-purchase system, Judge Immergut held that it was an example of a \u201cshall-issue\u201d licensing regime, which the Supreme Court in Bruen <\/em>indicated is constitutional under the Second Amendment. Under Bruen<\/em>, a shall-issue regime requires issuance of a permit based on \u201cnarrow, objective, and definite standards\u201d and do not afford excessive discretion to licensing officials. The OFF <\/em>Court ruled that Measure 114\u2019s permitting regime is just such a shall-issue regime, and therefore constitutional under Bruen<\/em>.<\/p>\n Rejecting the plaintiffs\u2019 other constitutional claims under the Takings Clause and the Due Process Clause, the Court entered final judgment for the Oregon Alliance and the State Defendants.<\/p>\n Pacifica partner Zach Pekelis, who first-chaired the trial for the Oregon Alliance, hailed the decision. \u201cThe Court\u2019s detailed, well-reasoned decision is a significant victory for gun violence prevention and for the people of Oregon,\u201d Pekelis said. \u201cIn adopting Measure 114, Oregonians voted for common-sense strategies to reduce mass shootings, which overwhelmingly involve LCMs, and to ensure people meet basic requirements before they may purchase a deadly weapon\u2014which has been shown to reduce homicides and other interpersonal violence. The ruling confirms that Measure 114 is not only good policy, but it is perfectly consistent with the Second Amendment. As the concurring Justices told us in Bruen<\/em>, \u2018Properly interpreted, the Second Amendment allows a variety of gun regulations.\u2019 We hope other courts adjudicating Second Amendment cases around the country follow the Court\u2019s thorough and measured decision, which we are confident will be affirmed on appeal.\u201d<\/p>\n Ballot Measure 114 is also the subject of a case in Oregon state court. In that case, the Harney County Circuit Court entered a temporary restraining order blocking the measure\u2019s enforcement pending trial, which is scheduled for September 2023.<\/p>\n In addition to representing the Alliance for a Safe Oregon, Pacifica has long represented the Seattle-based Alliance for Gun Responsibility<\/a>. Pacifica secured significant victories for the Alliance for Gun Responsibility in state and federal cases challenging Washington firearm laws, including I-594 (requiring background checks for all gun sales), I-1639 (enacting age and residency restrictions on purchase of semiautomatic rifles), Senate Bill 5078 (restricting large-capacity magazines), and House Bill 1240 (restricting assault weapons).<\/p>\n\n