Connect with us

2nd Amendment

America’s Toughest Gun Law Heads To Court Next Week

Oregon flag (U.S. state) Gun Control USA

From our friends at Concerned Patriot,

( – The “most extreme” gun control law in the U.S., an Oregon law, will come on trial next week in a case that has attracted the attention of both proponents and opponents of firearms.

“I have never seen this many people so interested in a legal proceeding,” said attorney Tony Aiello Jr. on Fox News.

VNSH Holster

Aiello, defending a couple of gun owners from Harney County contesting initiative 114 under the Oregon Constitution, continued, “This case is about a bare majority of voters adopting a poorly-written ballot initiative that erodes, and I would argue erases a constitutional right.”

Measure 114 was approved by Oregonians in November with 50.65% of the vote, despite only six of the state’s 36 counties having voted in favor of it.

The legislation, which organizations like the legislative branch of the NRA called “the nation’s most extreme gun control Initiative,” makes it necessary to obtain a firearm permit and outlaws the sale of magazines that can store more than 10 rounds.

However, the law has not yet come into force due to recent federal and state-level legal challenges.

According to a ruling made in July by federal judge Karin Immergut, Oregon’s law adheres to a tradition in the United States of “regulating uniquely dangerous features of weapons and firearms to protect public safety.”

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is hearing the plaintiffs’ appeal of Immergut’s decision.

For gun owners Joseph Arnold and Cliff Asmussen from Harney County, Aiello will appear in court on Monday and make the case that Measure 114 is unconstitutional under the Oregon Constitution because it would serve as an outright ban.

The initiative was created by the interfaith organization Lift Every Voice Oregon. It gathered over 130,000 signatures to get it on the ballot last autumn.

According to the group, a permit-to-purchase system will lessen shootings, suicides, and other violent crimes.

“When our neighbors are bleeding, we cannot stand idly by,” Rev. Mark Knutson, one of the chief petitioners for the measure, previously told The Oregonian. “We had an imperative to act.”

VNSH Holster

Emails asking for interviews with Lift Every Voice Oregon representatives went unanswered.

After the law was implemented late last year, there was an increase in gun sales, and Oregon State Police received hundreds of new requests for background checks every day.

Bryan Fitzgerald, owner of a pawn store in Salem, told Fox News that he had difficulty keeping guns on the shelves for an extended period.

He thinks firearms sales, which once comprised around 30% of his business at Elite Buyers N.W., now comprise between 50% and 60% of total sales.

“Ballot Measure 114 really just made everything just absolutely crazy,” he added.

Fitzgerald is keeping a careful eye on the legal battles around the measure. Still, he acknowledges that he is in a better position than many gun dealers because his pawn store includes various items, including tools, jewelry, and electronics.

“If we were just a gun shop, I would be really, really scared,” he said. “I wish the people that were making laws about firearms weren’t anti-firearm.”

The permit system is the focal point of much of the criticism of the measure.

Measure 114 imposes much stricter requirements than what is currently needed to even obtain a concealed handgun license in Oregon, requiring prospective gun buyers to complete an “in-person demonstration of the applicant’s ability to lock, load, unload, fire and store a firearm before an instructor certified by a law enforcement agency.”

“No training programs in the state satisfy all permission requirements,” according to police and sheriffs’ statements from December.

Fitzgerald said he has regular communication with law enforcement, who have assured him that nothing has changed.

However, Oregon State Police did not answer whether similar programs had been introduced since then.

However, Aiello won’t be allowed to bring up that fact in court.

Circuit Judge Robert S. Raschio granted the state’s request to exclude claims that if Measure 114 is approved, police could not process permits swiftly because they would be based solely on conjecture.

The state added that the measure “provides a clear, speedy remedy” if Oregonians have delayed or denied permits.

The vote item language states that individuals who have their permit applications rejected or not processed within 30 days may file a petition with their local circuit court.

“I’m just not going to guess what the program is going to look like,” Raschio said, according to The Oregonian.

“I find it persuasive that the case law says that you can’t speculate how a law is going to be applied,” he added, “and this law has never been applied to anyone.”

VNSH Holster

Raschio, however, also won the gun owners by accepting their requests to bar testimony about the destructiveness of high-capacity magazines, the success of other states’ permit-to-purchase schemes in lowering shootings, or affidavits from victims about the death of loved ones in shootings.

The trial is anticipated to go until the following Friday. Regardless of the result, Aiello asserted that both sides in the controversy expected the matter to eventually go before the Oregon Supreme Court.

What are your thoughts? Let us know below

Copyright 2023.

(Visited 5 times, 1 visits today)

2nd Amendment

Forces of Freedom Push Back Against National Red Flag Laws


The upcoming visit of Vice President Kamala Harris to Florida isn’t just a routine affair; it’s a strategic move to promote yet another assault on our constitutional rights by the Biden administration. The so-called National Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) Resource Center, presented as a tool to prevent violence, is actually a thinly veiled attack on the Second Amendment. Let’s delve into why conservative voices and Republicans are vehemently opposing this Orwellian initiative.

A Closer Look at ERPOs: A Conservative Stand for Freedom

Under the guise of preventing harm, ERPOs grant authorities the power to strip individuals of their firearms based on vague and subjective criteria. Modeled after domestic violence protection orders, these laws trample on the rights of law-abiding citizens, eroding the very foundation of our freedoms.

Erosion of Due Process: A Fundamental Concern for Conservatives

At the heart of conservative values lies a steadfast commitment to due process and the rule of law. ERPOs flagrantly disregard these principles, allowing for the seizure of firearms based on mere allegations, often without the opportunity for the accused to defend themselves in court. This erosion of due process sets a dangerous precedent that conservatives cannot abide by.

Targeting Law-Abiding Citizens: Conservative Opposition

Despite claims of targeting individuals deemed a threat, ERPOs have the potential to be weaponized against law-abiding citizens. By exploiting vague criteria and subjective judgments, authorities can effectively disarm individuals without just cause, infringing upon their constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Conservatives recognize this blatant overreach and refuse to stand idly by as their rights are trampled upon.

A Federal Overreach: Conservative Concerns

Conservatives staunchly oppose the creation of the National ERPO Resource Center as a blatant overreach of federal authority. This centralized bureaucracy threatens to undermine the sovereignty of states and the rights of their citizens. Conservatives believe in the principles of limited government and federalism, and they refuse to allow the federal government to dictate firearm policies that should be left to the states and local communities.

Resistance from the Right: Conservative Leaders Speak Out

Republican leaders have been at the forefront of the opposition to this Orwellian initiative. Voices like Reps. Thomas Massie and Marjorie Taylor Greene have sounded the alarm, urging Americans to resist this assault on their freedoms. Conservatives across the country are uniting to defend the Second Amendment and push back against the Biden administration’s agenda.

Conservatives understand that the true path to safety lies not in surrendering our rights but in upholding the principles of liberty and justice for all. The Biden administration’s relentless pursuit of gun control measures is an affront to these principles, and conservatives will continue to stand united against any encroachment on our freedoms. It’s time to reaffirm our commitment to the Constitution and reject any attempts to erode our Second Amendment rights.

What do you think of the push for national red flag laws? Leave your thoughts in the comments below. 

Continue Reading

2nd Amendment

Federal Judge Rules Second Amendment Protects Gun Rights of Illegals


In a groundbreaking decision, U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman of Illinois has ruled that the Constitution extends Second Amendment protections to illegal aliens who enter the United States illegally. The ruling comes in response to a case involving defendant Heriberto Carbajal-Flores, challenging a federal prohibition on illegal aliens owning firearms.

Constitutional Protection for Second Amendment Rights

Judge Coleman’s ruling, delivered on Friday, asserts that while there exists a federal ban on illegal immigrants possessing firearms, this prohibition is unconstitutional as applied to Carbajal-Flores. Despite the federal law being deemed “facially constitutional,” the court found that there is no historical basis for firearm regulation that justifies denying Second Amendment rights to noncitizens who have not been convicted of violent crimes.

Judge Coleman stated that the statute violates the Second Amendment. Consequently, the court granted Carbajal-Flores’ motion to dismiss the charges against him.

Legal Precedent and Constitutional Interpretation

In reaching her decision, Judge Coleman referenced the landmark Supreme Court ruling on Second Amendment rights, emphasizing the absence of a historical tradition allowing the government to deprive noncitizens of their constitutional right to bear arms. This interpretation underscores the fundamental principle that the Second Amendment applies not only to citizens but also to noncitizens residing within the United States.

Implications and Future Proceedings

The ruling by Judge Coleman carries significant implications for the legal landscape surrounding gun rights and immigration. By affirming that the Second Amendment protects the rights of non-citizens, the decision challenges existing federal laws and sets a precedent for future cases involving similar circumstances.

Moving forward, the decision is likely to spark debates and legal challenges regarding the intersection of immigration status and constitutional rights. As the case progresses, it will be closely monitored by legal experts, advocacy groups, and policymakers alike, shaping the ongoing discourse on gun rights and immigration policies in the United States.


Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman’s ruling represents a significant development in the ongoing debate over Second Amendment rights and immigration laws. By affirming that noncitizens, including those who enter the country illegally, are entitled to constitutional protections, the decision highlights the importance of upholding fundamental rights regardless of citizenship status. As the legal proceedings continue, the implications of this ruling will reverberate throughout the legal and political spheres, shaping future policies and interpretations concerning gun rights and immigration in the United States.

What do you think of the federal court’s ruling? Leave your thoughts in the comments below. 

Continue Reading

2nd Amendment

South Carolina Embraces Permitless Carry: Strengthening Second Amendment Rights


In a resounding affirmation of Second Amendment principles, South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster has signed permitless carry into law, making it the second Republican-led state in as many days to adopt constitutional carry gun laws.

Governor McMaster’s Stance on Permitless Carry

Governor McMaster hailed the new legislation as a crucial step towards enhancing public safety and ensuring that law enforcement agencies possess the necessary tools to combat illegal gun use and possession by criminals. Speaking on the significance of the law, Governor McMaster emphasized its role in enabling law enforcement, prosecutors, and judges to keep career violent offenders behind bars, thereby safeguarding innocent South Carolinians from harm.

The NRA-Backed Bill: Key Provisions


Backed by the National Rifle Association (NRA), the permitless carry bill allows eligible citizens aged 18 and older to carry a firearm in public without the need to obtain approval and a permit from the government. This legislation represents a significant departure from the previous regulatory framework, which required individuals to undergo a permitting process before carrying a firearm in public spaces.

Bolstering Public Safety

Proponents of permitless carry argue that it enhances public safety by empowering law-abiding citizens to exercise their inherent right to self-defense without bureaucratic impediments. By removing the requirement for a government-issued permit, permitless carry ensures that individuals can protect themselves and their loved ones promptly in critical situations.

Legislative Approval and Support


The bill garnered substantial support in both chambers of the South Carolina legislature, with the state Senate passing the legislation in a 28-18 vote and the state House approving it with a vote of 86-33. This bipartisan support underscores the broad consensus among lawmakers regarding the importance of upholding Second Amendment rights and promoting individual freedoms.

Addressing Concerns and Misconceptions

Critics of permitless carry have raised concerns regarding potential risks associated with expanded firearm access. However, proponents assert that responsible firearm ownership, coupled with stringent penalties for criminal misuse, mitigates these concerns and promotes a safer environment for all citizens.

South Carolina’s embrace of permitless carry represents a significant victory for proponents of Second Amendment rights and individual liberties. By enacting legislation that empowers law-abiding citizens to exercise their inherent right to bear arms, South Carolina reinforces its commitment to upholding the principles enshrined in the United States Constitution. As the national discourse on gun laws continues to evolve, the passage of permitless carry in South Carolina serves as a beacon of hope for those who champion individual freedoms and the preservation of constitutional rights.

Leave your thoughts about the victory of the Second Amendment in South Carolina in the comments below. 

Continue Reading


Copyright © 2024 Guncountry. All Rights Reserved