Today is the 81st anniversary of a “date which will live in infamy” -but apparently isn’t taught in public schools anymore. On Sunday morning, December 7, 1941, the Imperial Japanese Navy attacked the United States Naval Base in Honolulu, Hawaii. When the attack ended, the U.S. Pacific fleet lay in ruins, 2,403 soldiers, sailors, airmen and civilians were dead, and the United States was headed full-speed into World War II.
Each year, an increasingly smaller crowd of Pearl Harbor survivors, veterans and visitors from across the world come together at Pearl Harbor to remember the service members and civilians killed that Sunday morning. Some of those ceremonies will actually be live-streamed today. You can see the schedule yourself here.
Firsthand, it’s one of the most impactful commemorative ceremonies imaginable. And it is both fitting and proper that we continue to recognize those World War II veterans for their service and sacrifice.
As efforts continue to rewrite our history, it has never been more important to remember -and teach -landmark events that form our actual history.
Meanwhile Oregon gun owners have to be wondering what’s next for them.
Oregon Measure 114, a measure mandating a complicated permit-to-purchase regulatory scheme was passed in last month’s elections by the narrowest of imaginable margins (50.65% is by all definitions narrow) . Because the measure has a radical impact on gun owners, buyers have been swamping Oregon gun shops to make purchases before the mandated implementation date.
That date? Tomorrow. December 8, 2022.
As written, Measure 114 mandates implementation of a permit-to-purchase system which requires fingerprinting and hands-on-firearms training from a “certified instructor” in order to purchase a firearm. Measure 114 also stipulated five-year permit at a cost of up to $65, with the federal background check still required for every purchase.
The measure also bans magazines holding more than ten rounds. In other words, if you’re an Oregon gun owner, you see a lot of things wrong with Measure 114.
If you were a legislator who supported 114 or one of the 50.65% who supported it, you’d think you’d be celebrating. But…you’d be wrong -at least when it came to bureaucrats charged with enacting the measure.
For them -and the host of Second Amendment advocacy groups who rushed to file lawsuits in opposition - meeting the deadline presented a logistical nightmare -and opened the door to having the measure tossed by federal courts.
The Oregon DOJ, realizing their error, wrote a letter to the federal courts requesting a “limited window in which Oregonians will be able to purchase firearms even if they do not have a permit, while also allowing Oregonians to apply for and be issued permits.”
Yesterday, Federal District Judge Karin Immergut stayed the implementation of Measure 114’s “permit-to-purchase” scheme for “at least the next 30 days.”
But to the consternation to Measure 114’s many opponents, she denied an emergency motion to enjoin enforcement of the ban on “use, possession, manufacture or sale of magazines capable of holding more than 10-rounds of ammunition.”
The ban on magazines would, barring other action (more on that ahead) go into effect tomorrow as stipulated in Measure 114.
After the federal ruling yesterday afternoon, the National Shooting Sports Foundation issued a statement saying the NSSF:
“respectfully disagrees with the court’s ruling. The court misapplied the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Bruen decision, which set forth the proper analysis for evaluating laws that burden Second Amendment rights. The court incorrectly relieved the State of its burden to demonstrate that the restrictions in Measure 114 are “part of the historical tradition” of firearm regulations that existed at the time the Constitution was adopted. The court mistakenly placed the burden on the plaintiffs to prove a “need” for lawful self-defense. The court also engaged in the very interest-weighing analysis the Supreme Court expressly rejected in both its Heller and more recent Bruen decisions.
A polite way of saying the judge tried to have it both ways.
There’s a lot of legal wrangling ahead -at both the federal and state level.
Yesterday, prior to the announcement of the federal decision, Harney County, Oregon Judge Robert S. Raschio enjoined the state from enacting any part of Oregon Measure 114 until “at least December 13” when the court will hold a hearing on a motion for a preliminary injunction filed by Gun Owners of America.
Oregonians are likely to continue overrunning gun shops to make purchases before the deadline-or whenever hearings do get underway. Logic’s on their side. While the law may ultimately be tossed as unenforceable of infringing on the Second Amendment, no buyer -or seller- wants to spend time in the Oregon court system -or a correctional facility while the courts sort the whole mess out.
At this writing, the National Rifle Association, Gun Owners of America, Firearms Policy Coalition and the Second Amendment Foundation have all filed suits against the law.
Prior to all the last-minute court actions, the SAF’s Alan Gottlieb told me the Oregon DOJ’s filing requesting the limited delay was, in itself, essentially proof the law was “inoperable.” In fact, he said “we think it needs to be thrown out by the court -in total.”
Of course, the Oregon DOJ disagrees, saying the delay’s only necessary to “overcome implementation issues.”
Brian Simmonds Marshall, Senior Assistant Attorney General, wrote, “The State’s position that Measure 114 is constitutional on its face remains the same. As our briefing will explain, there is no basis to enjoin Measure 114’s provisions governing the issuance of permits to purchase, its restrictions on large-capacity magazines, or various provisions requiring completed background checks when firearms are purchased.”
In the “explanation” Marshall writes, “Law enforcement partners have made it clear that necessary pieces of the permit to purchase system will not be in place by December 8. Most significantly, Measure 114 requires a person applying for a permit to purchase a firearm to present their police chief or county sheriff with a ‘proof of completion of a firearms safety course’.”
He’s underselling their comment.
Local law enforcement officials say there’s no way an in-person demonstration before an instructor certified by a law enforcement agency” can be achieved by December 8. They say it will take months not days, to create a workable system.”
There are plenty unanswered questions. But we’re a lot of billable legal hours away from any definitive answers.
As always, we’ll keep you posted.
— Jim Shepherd