FPC Files Lawsuit Challenging Oregon “Large Capacity” Magazine Ban

Magpul PMAG Gen3 (Window) 30 Round AR-15 Magazines
Magpul PMAG Gen3 (Window) 30 Round AR-15 Magazines

U.S.A.-(AmmoLand.com)- Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced today that it has filed a new Second Amendment lawsuit challenging Oregon Measure 114’s ban on magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds and requested a temporary restraining order to prevent the ban from being enforced while the case continues. The complaint and motion in Fitz v. Rosenblum can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“The State of Oregon has criminalized one of the most common and important means by which its citizens can exercise their fundamental right of self-defense,” argues the complaint. “By banning the manufacture, importation, possession, use, purchase, sale, or transfer of ammunition magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds (‘standard capacity magazines’), the State has barred law-abiding residents from legally acquiring or possessing common ammunition magazines and deprived them of an effective means of self-defense.”

“Today’s filings are proof yet again that when statist idealogues attempt to unilaterally restrict the rights of peaceable people, FPC will step up and fight back,” said FPC Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “And the good people of Oregon should keep their eyes peeled for additional FPC responses to the incredibly flawed Ballot Measure 114.”

FPC is joined in this lawsuit by the Second Amendment Foundation.

Individuals who would like to Join the FPC Grassroots Army and support important pro-rights lawsuits and programs can sign up at JoinFPC.org. Individuals and organizations wanting to support charitable efforts in support of the restoration of Second Amendment and other natural rights can also make a tax-deductible donation to the FPC Action Foundation. For more on FPC’s lawsuits and other pro-Second Amendment initiatives, visit FPCLegal.org and follow FPC on Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube.


About Firearms Policy Coalition

Firearms Policy Coalition (firearmspolicy.org), a 501(c)4 nonprofit organization, exists to create a world of maximal human liberty, defend constitutional rights, advance individual liberty, and restore freedom. FPC’s efforts are focused on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and adjacent issues including freedom of speech, due process, unlawful searches and seizures, separation of powers, asset forfeitures, privacy, encryption, and limited government. The FPC team are next-generation advocates working to achieve the Organization’s strategic objectives through litigation, research, scholarly publications, amicus briefing, legislative and regulatory action, grassroots activism, education, outreach, and other programs.Firearms Policy Coalition

FPC Law (FPCLaw.org) is the nation’s first and largest public interest legal team focused on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and the leader in the Second Amendment litigation and research space.

Subscribe
Notify of
7 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Rowboat

Jog my memory; as I recall didn’t California get its “ large Capacity “ law overturned by the 9th Circuit Court as unconstitutional and wouldn’t that have a bearing on the Oregon case ?

DIYinSTL

That case was GVRed by SCOTUS and then the High Table, I mean the 9th circuit court of appeals, remanded it back down to Judge St. Benitez who originally heard the case and found it unconstitutional using the same methodology that became the standard in the Bruen decision. Benitez is hustling the case along, much to the dis-satisfaction of CA’s AG office. He may make a ruling by years end. If you want to keep track of it, follow the Armed Scholar on youtube. His titles are over-the-top but his content is good. He’s located in CA and keeps close… Read more »

musicman44mag

Question. We have Orgone Firearms Federation, a sheriff and a FFL challenging the new law requiring training to buy a gun and the magazine ban. Now we have another group challenging the magazine ban only. How is it that no one is suing based on some sort of malpractice. I don’t know what it would be called but to make a law, then enforce it but have no provisions for the people to have the ability to follow that law and no idea when it might take place should be illegal. It’s like entrapment. I am being held hostage against… Read more »

TStheDeplorable

Here’s my guess: There is about a zero percent chance of getting the Oregon state courts to grant a preliminary injunction of the law, so it makes sense to sue in federal court, where they are less liberally biased. Once that injunction is in place, and gun stores can stay open, I expect there will be parallel lawsuits in Oregon state courts. The reason they may want to also sue in Oregon state courts is that there are strong state constitution and statutory challenges to make. The strongest one is that our state constitution says that any law that will… Read more »

musicman44mag

Thanks for the info. l learned some things I didn’t know. I appreciate your time. Take care and happy holidays or dare I say, Merry Christmas.

DIYinSTL

Take a look at “Washington Gun Law” on youtube. Firm president William Kirk can keep you up to date on what’s happening since OR right next door to them. e.g.:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtvXNuDBG_w
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-zK1WOe5cE

Tionico

These are two separate issues. The one most critical to follow is to get the law as written tossed out as not valid, unconstitutional, etc. That must happen through the Federal courts. Once that happens (as I believe it must) THEN state and local courts can begin to address the iissues you and others re raising based on HOW this thing masquerading as “law” managed to even find a place on the bllot. As I rell there were some chalenges to that but none of thise prevailed. Once this monster is put down like the rabid skunk it is, the… Read more »