Oregon voters passed a gun control ballot measure this month that many are now deriding as unconstitutional.
Ballot Measure 114 narrowly passed earlier this month — with 51% of Oregon voters favoring the initiative and 49% voting against it. The measure in question contained several provisions, including limiting the number of rounds that can be carried in a magazine to 10 and also enacting a “permit-to-purchase system.”
As reported in the NRA’s 1st Freedom last month:
“With the implementation of a permit-to-purchase system, the process to lawfully acquire a firearm could take days, weeks, or more, as the government functionally withholds someone’s constitutional right to purchase a firearm.”
A large number of Oregonians are anxious to exercise their gun rights while they still can, as the number of gun sales has spiked drastically since the passage of Ballot Measure 114 earlier this month.
A new legal suit filed last week alleges that the measure is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment as well as the Fourteenth Amendment which ensures due process.
Plaintiffs, including Sherman County Sheriff Brad Lohrey, the Oregon Firearms Federation and Marion County Gun Store Owner Adam Johnson sued Governor Kate Brown and Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum on Friday, arguing against the ballot measure.
The suit alleges that Measure 114’s “permits to purchase” provisions “violate the Second and 14th Amendments. The “proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms.”
The plaintiffs also take issue with the ban on carrying more than 10 rounds of ammunition in a magazine for the following reasons:
“Magazines having a capacity over 10 rounds are popular for self-defense
purposes. The grip of a handgun is sized to the common human hand. If enough space exists inside the grip for detachable magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds—as is true for most commonly sold handguns and rifles—it makes sense, from a self-defense
perspective, to take advantage of that space by accommodating as much ammunition as
possible. Each available round is an additional opportunity to end the threat. That is precisely why millions of Americans choose magazines over 10 rounds for self-defense,
including inside and outside the home.”
The Oregonian noted that “court challenges to … a ban on large-capacity magazines, are pending in neighboring California and Washington states” in the post-Bruen era.
Several sheriff’s offices in the state anticipated legal challenges to the measure and have stated that they don’t plan to enforce the magazine capacity limits while helping law-abiding citizens buy firearms.
Yamhill County Sheriff Tim Svenson wrote last week that enforcing Ballot Measure 114 “will not be one of the priorities” for his office.
Sheriff Joe Kast of Marion County also shared in a statement that his office will prioritize services towards the areas of “greatest need to best serve the residents and visitors within Marion County, therefore will not be focusing investigations on magazine capacity issues.”
THE PERSISTENT BASELESS OPTIMISM OF SECOND AMENDMENT PROPONENTS
Every single gun control law is but more evidence demonstrating the impotency of the Second Amendment.
Furthermore, a future generation of our posterity is likely to see the Second Amendment whittled away entirely or repealed altogether. This is inherent nature and danger of optional Enlightenment rights versus non-optional Biblical responsibilities, such as the following:
“Let the high praises of God be in their mouth, and a two-edged sword [or today’s equivalent] in their hand … this honor have all his saints. Praise ye Yah.” (Psalm 149:6-9)
“But if any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house [beginning with spiritual and physical protection], he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” (1 Timothy 5:8)
Which is more potent: 1) An optional right, or 2) A non-optional responsibility?
Which is more likely to be infringed, licensed, and ultimately abolished altogether?
Which did the pre-Second Amendment Americans look to for their authority to bear arms, with little or no infringement?
America was sold down the river when the 18th-century founding fathers replaced Biblical responsibilities (based upon the moral law of God) for Enlightenment rights, and nothing demonstrates it better than the Second Amendment.
Think about it: The Amendment WITH the wording “shall not be infringed” is the MOST infringed, licensed, and limited Amendment of the entire twenty seven. Furthermore, a future generation of our posterity is likely to see the Second Amendment whittled away entirely or repealed altogether. This is inherent nature and danger of optional Enlightenment rights versus non-optional Biblical responsibilities
For more, listen to “The Second Amendment: A Knife in A Gunfight” at Bible versus Constitution dot org. Go to our Video page and scroll down to title.
See also Chapter 12 “Amendment 2: Constitutional vs. Biblical Self-Defense” of free online book “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.” Go to our online Books page and click on the top entry.
Terry:
Seems to me that the overly dim view you take is, with respect to ongoing court actions, is poorly supported. Of course, there is a problem with the courts respecting their ongoing use of weasel wording in their decisions, rather than plain English, perhaps a basic failing of lawyers, that one hopes to see remedied. In conclusion, the trenchant points you make at the beginning of your remarks noted, and is certainly something to be considered.
Good morning, Alan, and thanks for responding.
Not a dim view at all! Yahweh God of the Bible is sovereign and thus everything goes wrong just right – to His ultimate glory and for the advancement of His Kingdom here on earth as it is in heaven, per Matthew 6:10 & 33, etc.
As with Gideon and his father’s idol to Baal, America’s national idol (the biblically seditious Constitution) must be torn down before any significant progress can be made for King and kingdom.
For evidence that the Constitution is biblically seditious, see free online book “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective,” in which every Article and Amendment is *examined* by the Bible, at Bible versus Constitution dot org. Click on the top entry on our Online Book page.
Find out how much you really know about the Constitution as compared to the Bible. Take our 10-question Constitution Survey in the sidebar and receive a free copy of the 85-page “Primer” of “BL vs. USC.” I’d love to send you a copy.