A third group has filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Oregon Measure 114, which would implement a permit-to-purchase mandate and limits high-capacity magazines.
The measure narrowly passed in the midterm election, and is set to take effect on Dec. 8. It will require anyone purchasing a new firearm to get a permit through state and county law enforcement agencies, take a training course and do a background check.
The measure forbids the sale, purchase and ownership of magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds.
On Friday, a federal judge in Portland will hear arguments related to the first emergency motion seeking injunctive relief. The motion, which looks to pause the measure from taking effect, was filed by the Oregon Firearms Federation, the Sherman County Sheriff's Department and a gun shop owner.
A second litigation was announced Wednesday involving the Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition and others.
The Oregon State Shooting Association, two gun owners, a sporting goods store and the National Shooting Sports Foundation filed a third lawsuit Thursday.
Oregon's Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum, who is named in all three lawsuits, submitted an argument against pausing Measure 114 saying that doing so would lead to unnecessary deaths.
All three lawsuits claim the measure is unconstitutional and infringes on the Second Amendment, citing the limits on magazine capacities and the hurdles of the new permit and database systems that are yet to be implemented.
As of Thursday, no court hearings have been set in the latter two suits.
Tung Yin, a law professor at Lewis & Clark Law School, said the state’s defense may hinge on the availability of other types of lower magazine capacity firearms.
"Are there other firearms that have 10 or fewer shots? If there are enough of those, whatever that would mean, then I think the state would have a good argument to say your right has not been infringed," Yin said.
Yin said it is expected that groups might file their own lawsuits if they are in different parts of the state.
“One reason it might be attractive for different groups to do this, rather than join together, is what we call 'forum shopping.' Basically, some judges are seen as more "liberal" and some as more "conservative," and on a hot button issue like this one, the groups challenging Measure 114 might – all things being equal – prefer a 'conservative' judge,” Professor Yin said.
“If the judges in Multnomah County are seen as being more liberal, the groups would prefer to be elsewhere,” he continued. “So you might have one group based in Portland, who would have to file in MultCo (unfortunate for them), but another group elsewhere would choose a different court.”