Arnold v. Kotek

Plaintiffs challenged the facial constitutionality of the [Measure 114, Reduction of Gun Violence Act] under Article I, section 27, of the Oregon Constitution, which provides that “[t]he people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence [sic] of themselves, and the State[.]”

Plaintiffs claimed that Ballot Measure 114, by imposing a permit-to-purchase program and point-to-transfer background check, as well as a ban on large-capacity gun magazines, interfered with the right to bear arms. The circuit court found that Measure 114 was facially unconstitutional and permanently enjoined the enforcement of the law and awarded the Plaintiff’s with costs and attorney fees. The state appeals. “For a statute to be facially unconstitutional, it must be unconstitutional in all circumstances, i.e., there can be no reasonably likely circumstances in which the application of the statute would pass constitutional muster.” State v. Sutherland, 329 Or 359, 365, 987 P2d 501 (1999). The Court reasoned that the permit-to-purchase program and point-to-transfer background check imposed by the Measure did not unduly burden the state constitutional right to armed self-defense because such right is not absolute and is subject to regulation by the legislature. Similarly, regarding the ban on large-capacity magazines also imposed by the passage of Measure 114, the Court said that the right to self-defense was not compromised because such a ban does not affect a person’s right to defend themselves or their property through the use of firearms. So, because the court concluded that Measure 114 can be constitutionally applied, it is facially valid. Reversed and remanded.