Video Highlights
- Oregon Firearms Federation V Cotec case ruled in favor of ballot measure 114
- Judge Karen irmagirt, a Donald Trump appointee, dismissed the lawsuit against the state of Oregon
- The court found that large capacity magazine bans and pre-purchasing licensing requirements withstand constitutional scrutiny
- Judge Irma Gert's reasoning included the argument that large capacity magazines are not commonly used for self-defense
- The court also concluded that large capacity magazines are not covered by the Second Amendment
- The court considered the historical tradition of regulating large capacity magazines
- The court determined that large capacity magazines are dangerous and unusual weapons
- The court upheld the pre-purchasing licensing requirement, comparing it to a shall issue state
- Further appeals are anticipated in the case
Video Summary
Welcome to Washington Gun Law TV, where we provide updates on firearm-related legal matters. In this video, we discuss the recent ruling in the case of Oregon Firearms Federation V Cotec, which involved the challenge to ballot measure 114. The ruling was issued by Judge Karen irmagirt, a Donald Trump appointee, in the United States District Court for Oregon.
In the case, two main issues were being argued - the large capacity magazine ban and the pre-purchasing licensing requirement. Judge Irma Gert upheld both of these provisions, stating that they withstand constitutional scrutiny. This ruling is a blow to the plaintiffs and means that the agony of ballot measure 114 will continue for all of Oregon.
One of the main arguments against the large capacity magazine ban was the "common use" test, which states that if a firearm accessory is commonly used, it cannot be banned. However, Judge Irma Gert dismissed this argument, stating that just because millions of Americans own large capacity magazines, it does not mean that they are commonly used in self-defense. The court relied on evidence presented by the defense, which showed that in self-defense situations, civilians rarely fire more than 10 rounds.
The court also considered the expert opinions presented by the plaintiffs and the defense. The court gave more weight to the defense's experts, who came from neutral academic backgrounds and had no economic interest in the sale of large capacity magazines. This biased interpretation of the evidence led to the court discrediting the plaintiffs' experts.
Furthermore, the court found that there is a long and rich historical tradition of regulating large capacity magazines. The court looked at historical evidence from the late 1700s, the early 1800s, and the Reconstruction Era, as well as more recent times. This selective interpretation of history led the court to conclude that large capacity magazines are not even protected by the Second Amendment.
The court also made the argument that large capacity magazines are dangerous and unusual weapons, even if they were deemed to be in common use. This reasoning allowed the court to structure its decision in favor of upholding the ban on large capacity magazines.
As for the pre-purchasing licensing requirement, the court upheld it, comparing it to a "shall issue" state. The court believed that Oregon's licensing requirement was similar to other states where licenses are issued to individuals who meet certain criteria. This decision was made despite the fact that such a requirement infringes on the right to bear arms without obtaining permission.
It is important to note that this ruling is not the end of the legal battle. Further appeals are anticipated, and the fight to protect second amendment rights in Oregon will continue. As responsible gun owners, it is crucial to be aware of the law and how it applies to each individual situation. Stay informed and stay safe.
