Federal judge rules Oregon’s strictest-ever gun law is constitutional


U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut ruled that Oregon’s new, stringent gun safety regulations are, indeed, constitutional. The new law is considered the strictest gun control law in the country.

Passed by voter initiative with Ballot Measure 114, it won with the slimmest of margins — 50.6% of the vote. The law bans large-capacity magazines and requires gun permits for all firearms and a federal background check.

Also, anyone already in possession of a large-capacity firearm is prohibited from taking it outside their home for any reason, unless going to a shooting range for practice, or for shooting competitions or hunting.

In her 122-page written order, Judge Immergut wrote that Oregon’s new law aligns with “the nation’s history and tradition of regulating uniquely dangerous features of weapons and firearms to protect public safety.”

After the law was contested by Second Amendment groups, including the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a state court judge had temporarily blocked it from going into effect. Judge Immergut’s ruling lifts that injunction.

Immergut wrote that large capacity magazines “are not commonly used for self-defense and are, therefore, not protected by the Second Amendment.”

She wrote that the Second Amendment permits the government to ensure that only law-abiding and responsible citizens can possess firearms.

This ruling will likely be appealed to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. If it makes it to the Supreme Court, the more conservative justices have found dozens of gun-control laws unconstitutional with New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, which was decided in 2022. 

The Bruen ruling means that lower courts must consider traditions that date back to the nation’s revolutionary founding when judging whether firearms limitations are constitutional.

Also in Oregon last week, Democrat Gov. Tina Kotek signed a law banning homemade guns, which some call “ghost guns.”

The governor signed House Bill 2005, which bans the manufacture, possession, and sale of any firearm without a serial number from a commercial manufacturer, or unfinished frames and receivers, including guns created with 3-D printers that are not made of nonmetal substances.


    • District of Columbia v. Heller, quoting Justice Scalia:

      “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

      So, the Universe in which we all live, actually.

      • Lick those boots, Whidbey!

        I often ponder what motivates quislings and collaborators with authority like you. Is it an abiding insecurity, or merely inherent evil?

      • That is complete left wing BS. The right to keep and bear arms is limited to NOT shooting someone that is not threatening you. That is the sum of the limitations. You can carry it anywhere you want, any time you want, and all the laws that restrict that freedom of movement with carrying a firearm are in violation of the US constitution. The constitution put that in place to protect the individual from other people and the government that now threatens those freedoms.

      • While I am a fan of Scalia, “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” does not include or even faintly suggest the limitations in Oregon’s regulation would be acceptable.

        Scalia’s general idea of limitations is reasonable (one could not reasonably argue that nuclear weapons were meant to be included in the 2nd), particularly when you put the Amendment in context with the Constitution and other Amendments. But only in a progressive fictional universe do there exist all those penumbras and emanations which declare there are numerous and ever-increasing cases in which a clearly enumerated right may be infringed.

        • “She wrote that the Second Amendment permits the government to ensure that only law-abiding and responsible citizens can possess firearms.”

          So the government chooses who is “law abiding”…. hen house met fox…. Especially this pack of foxes… er.. Jackels. Oh and her first name is “Karin”…need I say more?

          As for the ban on no firearm without a serial number… important to parse the wording. Before 1968, firearms didn’t need serial numbers and , as with New Jersey, if the wording is US federal serial number.. all foreign made firearms would be banned. Bingo… in one law tens of millions of firearms are “illegal”. Devious is just the beginning.

      • Whidbey,

        It doesn’t meet the threshold of Heller, let alone Bruen.

        Text, history, and tradition is the new standard set by Bruen.

        This law is clearly unconstitutional to anyone who doesn’t love big government.

    • Its ferry land in the 9th district, this should get appealed again. 1)One should not need a permit to exercise a right.

  1. Her interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is the legal equivalent of the Twilight books.

  2.  A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. 

  3. I predict the supreme Court will not look at this and it will be sent back to lower courts for consideration. In Florida, we can open Carry as long as you’re going to or from a fishing, hunting, hiking or other outdoor activity including a gun range. Some guys down here sling their AR rifles on them while they’re fishing in a city Lake in the city limits. Perfectly legal.

  4. It won’t go anywhere and will soon be deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
    What a waste of time these liberals put into trying to destroy the country. If they don’t like it, they should just go to China to get there needs met.

  5. Seems reasonable if “well regulated” means anything. No guns are being taken away from anyone. Penalties for bad guys with guns get harsher. Nothing wrong with a background check. Yea, some bad actors will get guns anyways. We all agree we can’t stop that, but we can make sure we’re not just handing them over to known offenders.

    Isn’t this what conservatives wanted? Tough on crime? You do time, you won’t buy; You do crime, we have more charges to get you locked up longer. You use these tools normally for competition/recreation? That’s still totally fine, and no one is taking them from you if you’re a good guy with the gun/magazine.

    • You are truly delirious. The constant imposition of restrictive laws on the law abiding is proof the law abiding need to be armed and vigilant. Your assessment of prosecution of criminals using guns in crimes is incorrect, proven in the public record. My weapons I own for self defense and hunting for food, not for competition or recreation.

      • ” …constant imposition of restrictive laws on the law abiding…”

        No, the restriction is specifically on the ones who DO NOT abide by the law. You know, because the background check restricts those that fail it (those who committed crimes), and nowhere does the law restrict those who abide by the law (you can still keep your guns, use them in recreation, and sporting.)

        “Your assessment of prosecution of criminals using guns in crimes is incorrect, proven in the public record”

        Are you claiming no crime is ever committed with a gun? That sounds delirious to me.

        “My weapons I own for self defense and hunting for food, not for competition or recreation.”

        Wonderful, then this law does not affect you in any negative way. You can rest easy.

    • At the time the Constitution was adopted the term regulated meant equipped. The courts interpret the word regulated as meaning equipped. If you were to consult a dictionary from the late 1700s or early 1800s your understanding of issues would be better regulated.

      • Latin root: early 15c., regulaten, “adjust by rule, method, or control,” from Late Latin regulatus, past participle of regulare “to control by rule, direct,”

        1620 definition: “to govern by restriction”

    • Et_tu, I sense that you and Whibdey the Dog are engaged in a competitive boot-licking contest here, to see which of you can demonstrate the greatest degree of kneejerk servility and abject obedience to (corrupt) authority.

      • Being harsh on crime is boot-licking? Very strange take. To each their own I guess. I prefer less crime. I like not letting violent criminals have guns. I own guns. I like good guys having guns. I support the 2nd Amendment. I also support this law. If that doesn’t make sense to you, you either haven’t read the actual law, get your news from social media fear mongering, or just assume that if someone disagrees with you they’re personally attacking you (which isn’t true).

        • So, according to you, just passing a law making previously legal guns illegal, will keep them out of the hands of criminals. Right.

          Maybe you didn’t notice the part of the law that makes most gun owners criminals if they support the ownership of firearms as per the Constitution. You know, without government permission.

          But go ahead and continue to ask permission to be Constitutional. That Kiwi will taste pretty good right up to the moment you are denied permission by that same government.

    • What do you think the word “regulated” actually means in the 2nd? Hint: it does not mean Government Controlled.
      It refers to well trained, in good working order, as in how a clock regulates it operations to keep time. Read up on what the authors of the Bill of Rights meant.

      • In McCollough’s “1776” he highlights a order by Washington to his officers to make sure the army is “well-regulated” in preparation for combat at Trenton. You have fallen into the trap of putting modern twist on older terms. There is that thing about controlling the present to control the past to control the future…..

        • I agree totally with that point. I would not have used a fictional account, but it was historically accurate. There is a reason why regiment is a military term…
          On the other hand, things like the Federalist papers, Mason’s writings, etc… indicate exactly the same thing.

  6. The judge is a communist sympathizer and Biden apologist, fearing that Biden’s misuse of the DOJ to prevent his opponent Donald J. Trump from regaining the White House, will provoke a civil war. Large capacity magazines would be critical in fending off radical left-wing Democrat groups from initiating violence. As in any civil war, firepower is crucial to maintaining democracy and freedom.

      • Thomas’ statements and yours are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

        As an example, just look at “Republican” (sic) Lisa Murkowski, and her record.

      • Once again, a lack of curiosity mixed with a profound lack of civics.

        Yes, Trump appointed her. The real trick is these judges are picked by the senators in their states. Oregon hasn’t had a Republican senator since Jesus was a teenager.

        POTUS roll is affirmation of their selection.

        • actually you are wrong. Senatorial courtesy usually applies to recommendations by the same party. There are other ways for candidates to be recommended. Neither Oregon senator approved of nominating Ryan Bounds. Both Oregon senators did support Immergut but did not recommend her. Bottom line if she is a communist sympathizer and Biden apologist the fault of her being a judge rests with the White House legal counsel.

  7. In the two hundred years of United States nation building the private freemen were the providers of all weapons defending the from foreign nation marauders as and intrusion. Without the considerable inventory of weapons there would have been no defense possible. Monarchies did not allow people with out of favor religions to be equally armed. When the King of King’s completes His conquest remaining weapons will become plow shares. Jesus delights in making His Father’s words “yes” and fruitful. So there will be a time when the need for plowshares will be overwhelming. Until that day…Americans do not waive any of their Jamestown Charter rights or Constitution rights.

  8. So it would follow this idiot judge named Karen would also find constitutional a law that would require a permit to engage in ones chosen religion, or to engage in free speech.

    This is why we have the ability to appeal a decision, for when we have to deal with idiot judges who either do not understand the constitution, or want to overturn it.

  9. All restrictive gun control laws, summarized:
    “You, a law abiding and responsible citizen, should not be allowed to own and use something because someone you have never met ‘might’ use a similar item in a crime.”
    Am I wrong?

  10. A quick reading of the Judge’s history shows a lack of conviction to anything not advancing her career.

    She’s been republican, democrat, independent, depending on the political winds of her time.

  11. This one Oregon judge will not provide the last word on what magazines are and are not commonly used by Americans for self defense. For their self defense the people of the United States already possess at least one hundred million firearm magazines that hold more than ten cartridges, so the judge is wrong, wrong, wrong. Opinion overruled. In any case, opinion utterly disregarded. Oregon’s sheriffs are on record that they will not enforce that infringement.

  12. This isn’t going to stick, the 9th Circuit will strike it down or the SC if it makes it that far.

  13. This will be appealed all the way to SCOTUS, of that you can be assured, and it will be overturned!

Comments are closed.