In a ruling last Friday, U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut upheld an Oregon gun restriction.
The ruling concluded that Oregon’s Measure 114 complies with the Second Amendment. The judge claimed it aligns with the U.S. tradition of “regulating uniquely dangerous features of weapons and firearms to protect public safety.”
Measure 114 places a ban on “large-capacity magazines” and mandates a permit for firearm purchases in the state. Existing “large-capacity magazine” owners are restricted from transporting their firearms outside their homes, excluding gun range practice, shooting competitions, or hunting.
The Oregon Firearms Association initially sued, arguing the law’s unconstitutionality. Following the ruling, they expressed their outrage in a website statement. They criticized Judge Immergut’s ruling, claiming it to be “simple nonsense” and foreseeing an overturn at the 9th circuit.
Immergut, according to the association, demonstrated a “painful ignorance” and was influenced by Oregon’s left-leaning Department of Justice. They questioned her decision-making process, considering the facts weren’t in her favor.
The Oregon law is one among several contentious gun control bills nationwide, such as Illinois’ struggling assault weapons ban.
SEE ALSO: Brand New SIG Sauer Romeo XC, Romeo X Pro Pistol Red Dots!
Judge Immergut, a Donald Trump appointee, justified Measure 114’s constitutionality by considering the historical context.
“Magazines are an accessory to firearms, rather than a specific type of firearm,” she wrote.
“At the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification through to the late nineteenth century, firearm accessories like cartridge boxes – which held ammunition but, unlike modern magazines, did not feed the ammunition into firearms – were not considered ‘arms’ but instead were considered ‘accouterments,’” the ruling said.
The law forbids the sale and transfer of ammunition magazines holding over 10 rounds.
It also closes the so-called “Charleston Loophole,” preventing default gun purchases after three days without a completed background check. The law requires state police to conduct background checks before approving a gun sale or transfer.
Passed in November, the measure has encountered multiple legal challenges. The NRA’s legislative arm dubbed it “the nation’s most extreme gun control initiative.”
As always, stay tuned for updates.
*** Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! All Local Sales are FREE! ***
Fine. I’ll just carry 2 or three guns now.
Magazines are not “an accessory”.. they are not a torch, laser, forward grip… they are a working part of modern firearms. Who get to set the limits on the amount they hold? That’s called an infringement
Why not ban low-brain-capacity judges? This poor excuse for a federal judge showed an appalling ignorance and lack of understanding of the function of firearms. Why is it all the really stupid people cannot or will not educate themselves about that which they are against?
If they’re so common and so ubiquitous, how it I’ve never SEEN a 10 rounder for an AR-15 or a Glock 17?? These people and this judge have brown eyes and the smell of turd on their breath.
Now I could be wrong but I’m not sure I’d be more wrong than this so-called “judge.” But by her rationale and arbitrary conclusion that a magazine should hold no more than “TEN (10) ROUNDS,” shouldn’t she actually be arguing that a magazine should hold “NO MORE THAN ONE (1) ROUND,” since her argument seemed to be based on the firearm-reality which existed when the Second Amendment was written. At that time were not all firearms “SINGLE SHOT.” I am surprised that the anti-Second Amendment lunatics have not incorporated that pinheaded retrograde concept into their illogical thinking. Somehow this person posing as a judge who thinks she is qualified to arbitrate legal decisions seems to think that in the 21st century it is appropriate to make legal decisions with an 18th century reality/mindset/brain. I’m sorry to inform you, “your honor,” but your absurd buggy whip mentality has no place in a technologically advanced world.
why not ban hi-capacity criminals!