PORTLAND, Ore. — In yet another attack on the Second Amendment, Oregon’s State Court of Appeals has ruled Measure 114 constitutional, setting the stage for one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the country to go into effect. Despite opposition from law-abiding gun owners, the court’s decision could soon strip Oregonians of their rights under the guise of “safety.”

Voters narrowly passed Measure 114 in November 2022, though the measure has been tied up in legal battles ever since. This draconian law mandates that gun buyers not only undergo a background check but also take a government-approved safety course before being granted permission to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms. Even more outrageous, it bans magazines holding more than 10 rounds—except for the government’s own enforcers, of course. The irony is lost on no one.

Supporters of this measure, like Rev. Dr. W.J. Mark Knutson of Lift Every Voice Oregon, are predictably gloating. “It’s a day to give rejoicing in a country that’s living with a lot of fear right now,” Knutson said during a press conference at his church in Northeast Portland. Fear, indeed—except it’s not criminals who will be affected by this law. It’s everyday citizens who want the means to defend themselves and their families in a state where crime is skyrocketing and police response times are abysmal.

Knutson and his allies aren’t stopping at Measure 114. Now, they’re pushing for even more restrictions, including House Bill 3076, which would require federally licensed gun dealers to get an additional license from Oregon. Because nothing says “common sense” like layering on more bureaucracy to make it harder for responsible citizens to exercise their rights.

Gun control advocates claim these laws will prevent mass shootings, pointing to incidents like the 2015 Umpqua Community College shooting. Yet they conveniently ignore the fact that criminals, by definition, don’t follow laws. Adding more regulations only disarms the law-abiding while emboldening the very criminals these measures supposedly target.

This law will also disproportionately impact minority communities, where self-defense is often a necessity due to higher crime rates in certain urban areas. Many law-abiding citizens in these neighborhoods rely on firearms for protection, and yet Measure 114 makes it more difficult for them to access the tools they need to stay safe. The financial burden of obtaining a permit, taking government-mandated safety courses, and purchasing compliant firearms with restricted magazine capacities will make it significantly harder for lower-income individuals to legally own a firearm, leaving them more vulnerable to crime while criminals continue to ignore these restrictions.

Another glaring flaw in this law is its arbitrary magazine capacity limit. The standard-issue Glock 17, one of the most popular self-defense firearms in the country, comes with a 17-round magazine straight from the factory. Many other commonly carried handguns also exceed the 10-round limit. This means that overnight, thousands of responsible Oregonians who carry for self-defense will be turned into criminals simply for possessing the same firearms they’ve lawfully owned for years. This isn’t about safety—it’s about control.

One of the most common arguments from gun control advocates is, "Why do you need so many rounds?" The answer is simple: because in a life-or-death situation, you want every advantage possible to protect yourself and your loved ones. The idea that a self-defense scenario is a perfectly controlled environment where a single, well-placed shot neutralizes a threat is a dangerous fantasy. In reality, adrenaline surges through the body, severely affecting accuracy, and multiple assailants are common in violent encounters.

Take, for example, the case of Stephen Willeford, the hero who stopped the Sutherland Springs church shooter in 2017. Willeford, a trained shooter and former NRA instructor, engaged the gunman with his AR-15, using multiple rounds to end the attack. Had he been limited to a 10-round magazine, his ability to stop the shooter would have been significantly hindered, potentially costing more lives. Even in cases of home defense, such as a break-in involving multiple intruders, a homeowner may need every round in their magazine to fight back effectively. Law enforcement officers carry firearms with higher-capacity magazines for this very reason—because they understand that real-world shootouts are chaotic and unpredictable.

Despite the court’s ruling, this battle is far from over. Tony Aiello, Jr., a senior associate with Tyler Smith & Associates, has already indicated that an appeal is in the works. Gun owners have 35 days to challenge this blatant infringement in a higher court, and rest assured—this fight isn’t over.

Oregonians who cherish their constitutional rights must stand up and make their voices heard. If we allow politicians and activist judges to erode the Second Amendment unchecked, what’s next? It’s time to push back against these unconstitutional power grabs and remind the state that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.