Harney County Circuit Judge Robert S. Raschio denied each of the state’s objections to his findings that helped form his opinion that Oregon’s voter-approved gun control Measure 114 violates the state constitution’s right to bear arms.

BURNS — Lawyers for the state are asking the Oregon Court of Appeals to put a hold on a Harney County judge’s ruling that found the voter-approved gun control Measure 114 is unconstitutional while they appeal the decision.

The state argued that Circuit Judge Robert S. Raschio got it wrong and also urged the appellate court to expedite the state’s appeal.

If a hold were to be granted, the measure could take effect for the first time.

“Measure 114 is a reasonable use of legislative authority to address increasing harms and threats from gun violence and mass shootings,” said the state’s motion filed Friday. “The statute is therefore facially constitutional. And yet, the trial court enjoined its enforcement, reasoning that the statute is facially unconstitutional under Article I, section 27. The trial court’s determination lacks support in law or fact.”

The Harney County gun owners who filed the suit challenging the voter-approved measure oppose the state’s hold request and intend to file a response, according to the court record.

The gun owners’ lawyer Tony Aiello Jr. said the state’s motion “continues a pattern of relentless overspending by the executive branch,” and his clients remain confident the motion will fail.

“Unfortunately, it is not surprising that the Defendants are taking this action despite having lost at every stage of this case, including two trips to the Oregon Supreme Court where similar requests were denied. We remain confident in the record we created at trial and look forward to continuing our fight against the most extreme anti-firearm law in the country,” he said by email.

Raschio ruled in late November that the measure violates the state constitution’s right to bear arms and then denied each of the state’s objections to his factual findings that formed his opinion.

The measure, which voters passed with 50.7% of the vote in 2022, requires a permit to buy a gun and bars the sale, transfer and manufacture of magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

The measure has not taken effect since voters approved it.

“The equities weigh heavily in favor of a stay,” Assistant Attorney General Robert A. Koch wrote in the motion. “Keeping people safe is a fundamental role of government. For more than a year, the trial court has stalled the people’s legislative efforts to promote public safety, based on rulings that lack any basis in law or fact.”

Raschio found the permit requirement and magazine ban both violate Article 1, Section 27 of the state’s constitution.

Despite the argument by state lawyers that the new regulations were intended to reduce mass shootings, suicides and homicides, Raschio said they failed to show either provision would promote public safety.

The state argued in its hold motion that Oregon will likely prevail in its appeal.

“Facing escalating gun violence in Oregon and across the country, the people enacted Measure 114 to prevent and mitigate the community-shattering impacts of gun violence. More than a year later, the voters’ efforts to do so remain stalled, based on rulings by the trial court that have no basis in either Oregon law or the record in the case,” Koch wrote.

Jess Marks, executive director of the Oregon Alliance for Gun Safety, said that, “Since Measure 114 was brought to the ballot over a year ago, it is estimated over 600 Oregonians have died from gun related tragedies.”

Meanwhile, Aiello has sought to disqualify four Oregon Court of Appeals’ judges from hearing the case: Jacqueline S. Kamins, James C. Egan, Darleen Ortega and Anna M. Joyce. Aiello questions their impartiality without providing his reasons why, which is not required under state law.

One of those judges, Joyce, has recused herself from the case “due to a conflict,” the court’s chief judge wrote this week. Before her appointment to the appellate court, she worked as a managing partner at the firm Markowitz Herbold, which has assisted the state in its defense of Measure 114.

In a separate trial, a federal judge in Oregon last year found the Measure 114 did not violate the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution but her ruling doesn’t supersede the state case.