What specific provisions are being challenged in Oregon's 2025 gun law and who are the plaintiffs?

1. What Measure 114 actually requires — the statutory targets of the lawsuits

Measure 114 would require a permit for firearms purchases that involves completed background checks and firearm safety training before acquiring a gun, set a statutory maximum fee (originally $65), and make it a Class A misdemeanor to manufacture, import, possess, use, purchase, sell, or otherwise transfer any magazine “capable of holding” more than ten rounds, effectively banning large‑capacity magazines in Oregon if implemented ^{[1] [3] [2]}.

2. Which parts plaintiffs challenged first — permits and magazines at the center

The Harney County lawsuit focused especially on the permit‑to‑purchase framework and the ammunition‑capacity restriction, with the Harney County circuit judge in 2023 finding those two major provisions violated the Oregon Constitution’s right‑to‑bear‑arms clause and issuing an injunction blocking the measure from taking effect ^{[2] [6]}. The state appealed that ruling, and the Oregon Court of Appeals later reversed, holding the measure facially constitutional — a decision the original challengers have sought to escalate to the Oregon Supreme Court ^{[7] [8]}.

3. Who the plaintiffs are and who is funding/assisting them

The named plaintiffs in the state‑court proceeding are two Harney County gun owners, Joseph Arnold and Cliff Asmussen, who live in the county where the original suit was filed ^{[4] [9]}. Their attorney, Tony Aiello Jr., is representing them in appeals, and they are joined in the litigation by national gun‑rights organizations Gun Owners of America and the Gun Owners Foundation, which regularly sponsor litigation challenging gun regulations ^{[2] [4]}.

4. Parallel federal challenges and distinct plaintiffs there

In addition to the state case, separate federal lawsuits challenge Measure 114 under the Second Amendment; plaintiffs in at least one federal suit include the Oregon Firearms Federation and others, and those federal proceedings have been stalled and appealed to the Ninth Circuit, reflecting a multi‑forum strategy by gun‑rights advocates ^{[5] [2]}. The state‑court fight, however, turns on Article I, Section 27 of the Oregon Constitution rather than on federal Second Amendment doctrine, a distinction argued by both sides in briefing and at oral argument ^{[10] [1]}.

5. The legal posture and stakes: injunctions, appeals, and possible outcomes

After the Harney County judge’s injunction and merits ruling, the Court of Appeals reversed and declared the measure facially constitutional, giving challengers limited time to seek further review from the Oregon Supreme Court — a petition that Arnold, Asmussen and their counsel pursued — while federal challenges remain active in the Ninth Circuit; if the state high court upholds the appeals panel, Measure 114 could move toward implementation unless federal courts ultimately constrain it ^{[7] [8] [5]}.

6. Motives, alliances, and the political theater around plaintiffs

The plaintiffs portray themselves as rural Oregonians defending a constitutional right and practical needs such as property and livestock protection, while national groups frame the litigation as defending a broad reading of bear‑arms protections; state and gun‑safety advocates counter that Measure 114 advances public safety and was voter‑approved narrowly in 2022, creating competing narratives that inform litigation strategy and public messaging ^{[2] [4] [11]}. Reporting shows counties and interest groups have explicit implementation or enforcement concerns and that legislative fixes (House Bill 3075) and local sheriffs’ statements are entwined with litigation tactics, suggesting political as well as legal incentives shaping who sues and how ^{[9] [8]}.