What temporary injunctions or stay orders have been issued against Oregon's 2025 gun law?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Harney County Circuit Judge Robert S. Raschio issued an emergency injunction blocking Measure 114 from taking effect after post‑vote lawsuits; that state‑court injunction has kept the 2022 voter‑approved law on hold while appeals proceed and was the central stay referenced in multiple articles [1] [2]. The Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s approach and ruled Measure 114 facially constitutional on March 12–13, 2025, but opponents appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court, meaning the Raschio injunction has effectively remained a controlling barrier to immediate implementation in 2025 [3] [4].
1. The emergency injunction that started the hold — what it did and who issued it
Shortly after Measure 114 passed, two Harney County residents joined by national gun groups sued in Harney County and Judge Robert S. Raschio issued an emergency injunction preventing the measure from taking effect, halting the permit and magazine provisions that voters approved [1] [5]. That injunction was the operative stay that kept Measure 114 from being implemented at its scheduled start time and became the focal point for state appeals [1] [2].
2. Appeals and the Court of Appeals reversal — not the final word
A three‑judge Oregon Court of Appeals panel concluded in March 2025 that Raschio applied an incorrect legal framework and declared Measure 114 facially constitutional, reversing the Harney County ruling [3] [4]. The appeals court’s decision did not instantly nullify the practical effect of the trial court’s injunction: opponents timely appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court, and the supreme court’s consideration can leave the lower court injunction in place while it reviews the matter [1] [3].
3. Parallel federal litigation and its interplay
Federal litigation has moved on a separate track: a federal judge previously ruled Measure 114 constitutional under the U.S. Constitution, and that federal ruling has been part of appeals at the Ninth Circuit — a distinct strand from the Harney County state‑court injunction [3] [4]. Available sources do not mention that the federal case directly dissolved Raschio’s state injunction; they indicate the state and federal tracks have proceeded concurrently [3] [4].
4. Legislative response and practical pauses in implementation
Oregon lawmakers in 2025 pursued bills to modify or set procedures for Measure 114 — notably House Bill 3075 and later bills such as Senate Bill 243 — and legislators moved to pause parts of implementation amid the legal fight; HB 3075 would change implementation details and require future challenges to be filed in Marion County if passed [1] [2] [6]. Some coverage notes that lawmakers effectively deferred practical rollout dates as litigation continued, reflecting the mix of judicial and legislative approaches to delaying implementation [1] [6].
5. Who is appealing and the likely short‑term result
The Harney County plaintiffs — Joseph Arnold and Cliff Asmussen — joined by Gun Owners of America and the Gun Owners Foundation, appealed the Court of Appeals ruling to the Oregon Supreme Court; that appeal preserves the procedural status quo that had kept the injunction in place pending higher‑court review [1] [5]. The state Supreme Court could either let the appeals court ruling stand or take the case and, if it does, the trial court injunction would “likely stay in place” while the state supreme court decides [3].
6. Competing perspectives and implicit agendas
Measure 114’s backers frame the injunction as an obstacle thwarting voter approval and public safety reforms; they emphasized the Court of Appeals win as vindication of policy intentions [4] [2]. Opponents and allied groups frame the litigation as protecting constitutional rights; national groups such as Gun Owners of America and the Gun Owners Foundation joined local plaintiffs, reflecting a strategic pattern of national organizations litigating state measures they view as precedent‑setting [1] [5]. Legislative actors have an implicit agenda to either codify or blunt Measure 114’s effects depending on partisan alignment, as seen in bills that both modify the measure and shift venue for future suits [2] [6].
7. What reporting does not say — limits of the record
Available sources do not mention any additional separate temporary restraining orders or stays beyond Judge Raschio’s injunction and the appellate activity; they also do not report that the Court of Appeals’ March 2025 ruling immediately dissolved Raschio’s injunction — in fact, reporting says the injunction remained relevant while further appeals were possible [1] [3] [4]. Detailed docket entries, exact dates of injunction language, and any emergency federal stays beyond the referenced federal ruling are not present in the provided reporting [3] [5].
8. Near‑term outlook and what to watch
Watch for the Oregon Supreme Court’s decision on whether to accept review and, if accepted, whether it leaves Raschio’s injunction in place during review — coverage points to that sequence as determinative for when Measure 114 could actually be implemented [3] [4]. Also monitor HB 3075 and related legislative actions that could alter implementation logistics, potentially changing where or how further challenges must be filed even as courts decide the law’s constitutional fate [1] [6].