Which Oregon counties and sheriffs have publicly refused to enforce Measure 114, and what legal steps has the state taken in response?

1. Who said they wouldn’t enforce Measure 114 — the county list and prominent sheriffs

Public reporting compiled during the Measure 114 fight identifies sheriffs in Klamath, Linn, Sherman and Union counties as having signaled they would not enforce some or all of the law—especially the magazine ban—citing constitutional concerns and practical enforcement challenges in rural jurisdictions ^[1]. In the Harney County trial that produced a permanent injunction, Harney County Sheriff Dan Jenkins and Union County Sheriff Cody Bowen testified that their small forces and vast territories often leave residents to fend for themselves, testimony the judge cited in finding the law unreasonable for rural counties ^[2].

2. The Harney County ruling that froze enforcement and the role of sheriff testimony

Harney County Circuit Judge Robert S. Raschio issued an opinion that Measure 114 infringed Oregon’s state constitutional right to bear arms and permanently blocked enforcement; Raschio explicitly referenced testimony from the rural sheriffs to underline the government’s limited capacity to provide rapid armed response in remote counties and used that as part of his reasoning that the measure’s burdens were not justified ^{[2] [5]}. The ruling and Raschio’s written findings drew immediate criticism from state lawyers who accused the judge of misapplying legal standards, setting the stage for an aggressive state appeal ^{[6] [3]}.

3. The state’s legal steps — appeals, stays and the systemwide fight

The Oregon Department of Justice appealed Raschio’s ruling to the Oregon Court of Appeals and repeatedly asked higher courts to stay the Harney ruling or otherwise allow Measure 114 to take effect while appeals were pending; the state also pursued administrative steps—budgeting for fingerprint scanners and preparing permitting infrastructure—arguing the state should be allowed to continue ordinary preparatory work even while the law was blocked ^{[3] [4] [6]}. The Oregon Court of Appeals at times declined to pause Raschio’s injunction, noting that allowing the measure to take effect while the appeal proceeded would “upend the status quo” ^{[7] [4]}. Earlier, the Oregon Supreme Court declined an emergency petition to overturn a different lower‑court block, leaving Measure 114's provisions on hold pending litigation ^[8].

4. Where the litigation moved next — reversal and reinstatement at the Appeals level

The state’s persistence culminated in a later victory at the Oregon Court of Appeals: a three‑judge panel reversed the Harney County decision and reinstated Measure 114, with the Oregon Department of Justice publicizing that step as a restoration of the voter‑approved law and an endorsement of its constitutionality by the appellate panel ^[9]. That appellate reversal demonstrates that the legal status of enforcement has shifted over the litigation timeline; however, multiple rounds of filings and potential further appeals mean enforcement reality can differ across moments in the court process ^{[9] [4]}.

5. Politics, power and the practical implications behind the public refusals

Declarations by rural sheriffs—amplified by groups like the Eastern Oregon Counties Association and farm and ranch lobbies—served both as operational warnings about enforcement capacity and as political signals aimed at mobilizing opposition to the measure; the state’s DOJ response shows its counter‑agenda: defending a voter‑approved law and building administrative systems to implement permitting even while litigating constitutionality ^{[10] [3]}. Reporting captures both legal technicalities and political theater: sheriffs emphasize feasibility and constitutional risk in sparsely populated counties while the state frames its actions as upholding the democratic will and public safety reforms, leaving readers to weigh law enforcement practicality against statewide legal mandates ^{[2] [9]}.