644 F.Supp.3d 782
D. Or.2022Background
- Oregon Ballot Measure 114 (approved Nov. 2022; effective Dec. 8, 2022) (1) creates a shall-issue permit-to-purchase regime requiring fingerprinting, background checks and a safety course and (2) bans manufacture, sale, purchase, possession, or use of magazines that accept more than 10 rounds subject to multiple exceptions and a grandfathering clause for pre‑existing owners.
- Plaintiffs: two gun-store owners, three county sheriffs, and the Oregon Firearms Federation; they sought a TRO and preliminary injunction to enjoin Measure 114 on Second, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment grounds.
- Defendants: Oregon officials defended the measure as a public‑safety law; they conceded implementation issues with the permit scheme and requested a postponement for permits.
- The district court applied the Supreme Court’s Bruen historical‑tradition test for Second Amendment claims and considered related Fifth/Fourteenth Amendment theories and the Winter preliminary‑injunction factors.
- Ruling: TRO denied as to the large‑capacity magazine restrictions and denied as to a facial challenge to the permit‑to‑purchase provision; the court stayed implementation of the permitting provisions for 30 days to allow the State to resolve operational issues.
- Court’s reasoning highlights: (a) plaintiffs did not show magazines >10 rounds are necessary for self‑defense or commonly used for lawful self‑defense; (b) defendants offered historical analogues and evidence of public‑safety justification; (c) plaintiffs failed to show irreparable harm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of ban on large‑capacity magazines under the Second Amendment | Ban restricts commonly used arms for self‑defense (magazines >10 rounds are in common civilian use) | Magazines >10 rounds are not necessary for self‑defense, are more military/law‑enforcement in character, and the ban fits historical analogues and modern public‑safety needs | TRO denied; plaintiffs did not show magazines >10 rounds fall within Second Amendment text or that defendants failed historical‑tradition justification on the limited record |
| Facial challenge to permit‑to‑purchase (Second Amendment) | Measure 114 unlawfully burdens right to purchase guns | Permit regime is a shall‑issue, objective scheme (fingerprint, background, training) consistent with Bruen; facial challenge fails | TRO denied as to facial challenge; shall‑issue framework presumptively constitutional |
| Fifth Amendment takings claim for existing magazines | Ban effects a physical taking of owners’ property, requiring compensation | Police‑power regulation of dangerous items is non‑compensable in equity; remedies at law exist; grandfathering and dealer options limit taking | Not likely to succeed; injunction inappropriate because damages/compensation remedies are the ordinary route |
| Irreparable harm required for TRO (Winter factors) | Loss of constitutional rights and forced relinquishment of magazines is irreparable | No immediate deprivation (grandfathering, limited uses retained), speculative self‑defense harm, and economic loss is not irreparable | Plaintiffs failed to show immediate, non‑speculative irreparable harm; Winter factors not met |
Key Cases Cited
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022) (articulates historical‑tradition test for Second Amendment challenges)
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (recognizes individual right to possess firearms for self‑defense in the home)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (holds Second Amendment applies to the states)
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (sets the four‑part preliminary injunction standard)
- Duncan v. Bonta, 19 F.4th 1087 (9th Cir. 2021) (pre‑Bruen large‑capacity magazine analysis in Ninth Circuit)
- Fyock v. City of Sunnyvale, 779 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2015) (magazines necessary to render some firearms operable; limits on that right)
- Kolbe v. Hogan, 849 F.3d 114 (4th Cir. 2017) (large‑capacity magazines characterized as most useful in military service)
- Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (1982) (physical occupation is a per se taking)
- Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992) (regulatory takings framework)
- Knick v. Township of Scott, 139 S. Ct. 2162 (2019) (takings remedy and availability of legal compensation affects equitable relief)