There has been some misinformation posted about Oregon Measure 114. It's like groundhog day. This has all been gone over before, in one case, it's been gone over with the same person who just recently posted disinformation about the measure. So, Phil has seen his shadow and I'm here to go over it all over again.
First, what is the measure? From the following:
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ab5336270e802ff969f9c0f/t/635eac91f0e2db5da5ae2893/1667148945466/Measure+114+FAQ-+WEB.pdf
What will Measure 114 do?
Measure 114 will save lives and reduce gun violence by closing a dangerous loophole and implementing simple and effective safety measures. Specifically, Measure 114 will:
Require a permit to purchase a firearm.
Require a background check on all gun purchases, the measure closes a loophole that previously has allowed people with prior convictions or restraining orders to purchase a gun.
Require fingerprinting for verification purposes.
Require safety training to ensure responsible use and storage.
Limit the sale of high-capacity magazines.
It is not a ban on "assault" rifles or any other gun that is currently legal for civilian ownership in OR or the US. It does not ban ownership of high capacity magazines or a person from using their gun with their high capacity magazine for self defense. It does not ban the sale of guns. It does not ban the ownership of guns for self defense or other purposes.
Nine other states have permit to purchase laws similar to Measure 114 and eight states have bans on high capacity ammunition magazines. These measures have been tested in courts and found to be legal under US constitution and their own state's constitution.
Johns Hopkins researchers used records from states that taken before and after these measures into law or before and after these measures were repealed. The records show firearm purchaser licensing laws were associated with
11 percent reduction in firearm homicides in urban counties from 1984-2015, They also show
56 percent lower rates of fatal mass shooting incidents, and 67 percent fewer mass shooting victims. Firearm purchaser licensing laws are also associated with
significantly lower rates of guns being diverted for criminal use shortly after retail sale.
Hence the reason for introducing the permit before purchase requirement in Measure 114
Everytown Research compiled data about mass shootings between 2009-2020. In the opening statement of that report, they make this point:
The United States is not the only country with mental illness, domestic violence, or hate-fueled ideologies, but our gun homicide rate is 26 times higher than other high-income countries. So, yeah, some mass shootings have been by people we would deem mentally ill but other countries have mentally ill people too. Why is the US different?
Collating data taken from each mass shooting event over the 12 year period, 247 mass shootings in all, they found the following trends:
Mass shooting events were more likely perpetrated by someone who was legally prohibited from possessing a firearm; more likely perpetrated by someone who displayed prior warning signs; intermingled with acts of domestic violence; and far deadlier when they involve assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. While nearly every assault weapon used in a mass shooting over this period included a high-capacity magazine, an additional 20 mass shootings involved the use of high-capacity magazines with other guns. Laws restricting magazine size were by far the strongest predictor of a state’s rate of mass shootings.
Another study estimated that mass shooting deaths were 70 percent less likely to occur when the federal prohibition on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines was in effect.
Hence the reasons for a more robust background check and ban on the sale of high capacity magazines. In Measure 114
Regarding constitutionality of Measure 114. As said earlier, 8 other states have enacted measures similar to the ones contained in Measure 114. All have passed court challenges and found they do not infringe on rights given in the second amendment of the US constitution. What remains is whether or not Measure 114 meets legal challenges under the state's constitution. A Harney County Circuit Court judge has made a preliminary ruling saying Measure 114 would prohibit owning a firearms and therefore infringes on the Oregon State's constitution. The lower court judge made his preliminary ruling in early December and has yet to issue his final ruling. Until he does, the State Supreme Court has ruled to keep the lower court judge's ruling in place.
The State of Oregon disagrees and is defending the measure. For legal beagles who say the measure is unconstitutional, here the state's rebuttal:
The Oregon Attorney General filed the state's response to a federal lawsuit challenging the narrowly approved ballot measure, which is set to go into effect Dec. 8.
www.oregonlive.com
A very high level summary of the state's defense: The attorney general’s office argues that the current gun owners who have filed a lawsuit challenging the measure won’t be harmed if the measure becomes law. “Plaintiffs can continue to keep and bear the arms they currently possess, which is enough to protect their Second Amendment rights for the pendency of this litigation,” wrote Brian Simmonds Marshall, a senior assistant attorney general.
