Ever read a ruling and wonder, “what on earth is this judge smoking?” Well, this is Oregon, so anything is possible, ladies and gentlemen.

Late Friday evening, U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut released a ruling on a challenge to state gun law entitled “Measure 114.” This law changed how guns were purchased in the state of Oregon, including requiring citizens to purchase a permit in order to purchase a firearm, and also “regulate” what the law defined as “large-capacity magazines”:

“Large-capacity magazines” include fixed/detachable magazines (or functional equivalent) that can accept “more than 10 rounds of ammunition and allows a shooter to keep firing without having to pause to reload.”

The Oregon Firearms Federation, along with others, sued the state in district court, saying that the law was unconstitutional. Well, Judge Immergut, a Trump appointee, didn’t see it that way. And on her way to her decision, she claimed that the law in Oregon was consititutional because… the firearms in question are “not commonly used for self-defense” so the law is totally okay.

LEGAL ALERT: An Oregon federal judge has upheld Measure 114's gun permit requirement and magazine ban, saying that they "are not commonly used for self-defense, and are therefore not protected by the Second Amendment." You can read the opinion here: https://t.co/RxrNOTkPHb

— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) July 14, 2023

*insert record scratch here* Ummmm, wut?

After a week-long trial, U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut in a 122-page order found that the law keeps up with “the nation’s history and tradition of regulating uniquely dangerous features of weapons and firearms to protect public safety.”

The law, Measure 114, bans the sale, transfer and import of gun magazines with more than 10 rounds for residents that are not members of the military or law enforcement.”

The measure, however, will not require current gun owners with high-capacity magazines to turn over their firearms, but does bar them from removing the weapons from their home for anything other than practicing at a firing range, in shooting competitions or for hunting, according to the Associated Press.”

Guns with high-capacity magazines are “not commonly used for self-defense, and are therefore not protected by the Second Amendment,” Immergut wrote in her ruling. “The Second Amendment also allows governments to ensure that only law-abiding, responsible citizens keep and bear arms.”

Uh, could someone tell the judge that she kind of missed the point of the Heller decision, along with several other things, along the way? Good grief.

The lawsuit, filed in November by the Oregon Firearms Association, argued that the gun control law violated the Constitution. In response to Friday’s ruling, the group said it “wasn’t entirely unexpected.”

“What we have read defies belief. While not entirely unexpected, Immergut’s ruling is simple nonsense and sure to be overturned at the 9th circuit,” the group wrote in a statement posted to their website. “When faced with the clear and undeniable issues about all magazines being banned and the permit system being completely unworkable, she essentially said ‘not my problem.’”

“We are sure there will be plenty of parsing of this absurd decision in the coming days, but it was clear from the very first day that Immergut was both painfully ignorant and in the pocket of Oregon’s far left ‘Department of Justice,’” the organization added.”

Of course, this Oregon law is going to be immediately appealed (not to mention that it is currently being challenged in state court as well), and will probably have to work its way up the ladder to the Supreme Court once again. And really, given Heller and Bruen, does Judge Immergut really think her decision is going to end up holding any water with this current Court? It seems pretty clear that the judge liked the new law, so decided to interpret Heller and Bruen as giving her the latitude to allow Oregon to regulate and ban whatever it wanted.

Reading further, it's clear she misconstrues Bruen by placing the "common use" as a limitation on the scope of the "plain text" of the Second Amendment. It is pretty clear from Bruen that any "common use" discussion is part of the "history and tradition" analysis.

— Jean-Luc Canard (@JLCanard) July 15, 2023

It should be noted that this ruling in Oregon follows on the heels of a Delaware case that is attempting to ban “assault weapons,” which Stephen Halbrook recently wrote about for Reason.

Delaware plagiarized California’s 1989 findings that it was imperative to ban any gun that is not a “sports or recreational firearm.” The state ignored the Delaware Bill of Rights guarantee of the right to bear arms “for the defense of self, family, home and State,” and disregarded Heller’s admonition that self-defense is “the central component of the right itself.”

Delaware copied a definition from Connecticut that criminalizes a rifle depending on where one’s fingers are placed when firing, and Maryland’s long list of banned rifles, such as the Colt AR-15. Curiously, that list excludes AR-15 HBAR (heavy barrel) rifles, unless made by Bushmaster – any semiauto rifle made by that firm is banned.”

The U.S. district court for the district of Delaware’s denied a motion by challengers for a preliminary injunction on the basis that they are not likely to prevail on the merits. The case is Delaware State Sportsmen’s Ass’n v. Del. Dep’t of Safety & Homeland Security. Appeal briefs are now being filed, which includes an amicus curie brief on behalf of the Delaware Association of Second Amendment Lawyers by yours truly and co-counsel Dan Peterson.”

The left is never going to give up when it comes to trying to use the courts for lawfare against the Second Amendment. They have been handed huge losses like Dobbs and the affirmative action cases, but the focus on the Second Amendment and firearms has never gone away. The plan has always been to erode as many Second Amendment rights as possible, to make it too expensive or too complicated or too burdensome to own a firearm, and in that way push reductions in firearm ownership. A deep, costly, and wide barrier without actually making it a ban, as it were. And every time there is a singular event like a mass shooting, the left works itself into a frenzy over what they could ban next – unless it turns out the shooter wrecks their narrative, at which point they drop it and run away.

But they are like the proverbial Terminator. They will not stop. They will never stop. And it is up to those of us who believe in our God-given rights to keep defending the Second Amendment.

Featured image via succo on Pixabay, cropped, Pixabay license