Opponents line up against Oregon gun control proposal on November ballot

Aug. 11—LA GRANDE — A measure requiring a permit, reporting of application data and safety training to buy a firearm in Oregon is set to appear on the November ballot. And gun rights proponents are taking stances against it.

Measure 114 also would outlaw magazines holding more than 10 cartridges.

"I'm not a fan of any infringement on Second Amendment rights," said Union County Sheriff Cody Bowen.

The proposition, titled "Changes to Gun Ownership and Purchase Requirements Initiatives," is one of the strictest gun control measures ever proposed in the nation, according to opponents.

"(Measure 114) will virtually end the sale of firearms in (the state)," Oregon Firearms Federation Executive Director Kevin Starret said. "Where do you suppose all the smaller towns who rely on private gun clubs for training are going to go for the live fire portion of the class? How often will they provide it? What costs will be created? How do those increased costs and barriers affect Black folks in inner-city Portland?"

Measure 114 would require a permit to obtain any firearm and it would outlaw magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. If the measure passes, it would ban some commonly used pump shotguns because their capacity can exceed that limit. Further, Oregon State Police would be required to maintain a searchable public database of all permit applications.

Bowen is troubled by how the passing of Measure 114 would impact his deputies and potentially strain resources.

"The thing that worries me most is staffing wise," he said. "Who's going to provide the classes, who's going to do the permitting?"

The initiative does not estimate the cost or analyze its impact on small local police departments.

The Oregon State Sheriffs' Association estimated even if a person could somehow complete the required training, the permitting process could cost sheriffs almost $40 million annually. But nothing in the measure provides any funding, and the fees included would not come close to covering the costs.

"Numerous police departments and sheriff's offices have agreed that complying with this measure will either be exorbitantly expensive or impossible," Starrett said. "None have said they will be offering the training required to apply for the permit to purchase, which sheriffs and local police will be tasked with administering."

Bowen believes that the proposed measure will not bring about the desired results. According to the sheriff, Measure 114 will not stop individuals with bad intentions from getting firearms, but will infringe on legal gun owners.

"We're barking up the wrong tree. What we need to do is education. We need to work within family structures to teach kids about respecting human life and coping mechanisms, rather than restrictive laws," Bowen said.

Mass shootings boost initiative drive

In early May, the almost all-volunteer Initiative Petition 17 to get the proposals on the ballot had gathered less than a third of the required signatures, Oregon Public Broadcasting reported. But that changed dramatically after shootings in Buffalo, New York, and Uvalde, Texas.

Volunteers and donations poured in, and the number of signatures ballooned, according to OPB. By late June, organizers said they had collected sufficient signatures to get the measure on the ballot. Yet they continued the effort to ensure there were enough, in case the Oregon Secretary of State disqualified some. State officials check and validate every signature.

The initiative would close the so-called Charleston loophole by requiring people to pass a background check before buying a gun, The Oregonian reported in May.

Under current federal law, firearms dealers can sell guns without a completed background check if it takes longer than three business days, measure proponents said. That's how the gunman in the 2015 Charleston African Methodist Episcopal Church mass shooting bought the Glock 41 .45 cal. pistol with which he killed nine parishioners.

Critics contend measure threatens legal gun owners

The measure would enact a law requiring a permit issued by a local law enforcement agency to purchase any firearm. Applicants would have to pay a fee, be fingerprinted, complete safety training, and pass a criminal background check.

In addition, the applicant must complete a hands-on demonstration of basic firearms handling to qualify.

"In order to obtain the permit, an applicant would have to show up with a firearm to demonstrate the ability to load, fire, unload, and store the firearm," Williamson, a Salem trial attorney specializing in gun law, said. "But you can't get a firearm without the permit. And under Oregon's highly restrictive gun storage laws, no one can legally loan a firearm to another. That creates an impassable barrier."

H.K. Kahng, of Portland, served on a five-person committee to write the measure's 500-word explanatory statement that will appear in the voters' guide this fall. Kahng, an engineer and National Rifle Association firearms instructor, said the permit and training programs create an unfunded mandate with no enforcement measures.

"The measure calls upon the Oregon State Police to come up with these (permitting and training) programs, but there's no consequence if they don't, and there's no time frame for coming up with them," Kahng said during the committee's July 26 meeting.

Williamson also expressed concerns that the permit system grants the Oregon State Police "unfettered authority" to inquire into all manner of personal information of the applicant and to deny the applicant the permit for any reason or for simply failing to cooperate.

"No information is off limits," he claimed. "The introduction of highly subjective criteria in (the measure) allows the government significant authority to intrude into the private lives of law-abiding citizens wishing to exercise their protected rights under the Second Amendment."

Opponents also argue that language describing the magazine ban creates confusion.

The measure allows "registered owners" of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds to retain them so long as they were purchased before the ban.

"But how do you prove when you purchased a magazine?" Williamson asked. "There is no magazine 'registration.' They don't have serial numbers. There's no way for the average person to prove they had it before the law was passed. That means citizens must prove their innocence."

Lawfully owned magazines that exceed 10 rounds may not be used for self-defense outside the home. Under the measure, possession would be restricted to the owner's property, at a gunsmith, on a private shooting range or during a firearms competition.

"The minute you leave the house, that 15-round magazine is now illegal, and you could be arrested and charged with a misdemeanor for each magazine in your possession because you're not in your home or at a gun range," Williamson explained. "And you could be charged multiple times for the same magazines since magazines do not contain identifying markings."

"So that could make an otherwise legal gun-owner a criminal overnight," Kahng said.

"But they would have time to turn those magazines in," said committee member Margaret Onley, an Oregon labor and employment attorney who supports the measure.

In the end, the committee voted 3 to 2 to adopt the explanatory language with minor changes and submitted it to the Oregon Secretary of State for final approval, leaving opponents frustrated.

"I don't think you'll find any precedent in U.S. history in which a citizen has to go through so many hoops to exercise Constitutional rights," Williamson said. "This is the first of its kind, and if it passes, it will wind up in court."

— East Oregonian reporter John Tillman contributed to this report.

Isabella Crowley is a reporter for The Observer. Contact her at 541-624-6014 or icrowley@lagrandeobserver.com.