'Second Amendment Sanctuary Ordinance' rejected by Oregon appeals court

An ordinance that aimed to prevent the enforcement of most state and federal firearm regulations within Columbia County is void, the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday, Feb. 15.

The "Second Amendment Sanctuary Ordinance" is preempted by state law and can't be enforced, the court found.

Columbia County voters approved measures in 2018 and 2020 that prohibited the enforcement of nearly all gun control laws.

The two measures were combined into one ordinance adopted by the Columbia County Commission. It states that “all local, state and federal acts, laws, rules or regulations, originating from jurisdictions outside of Columbia County, which restrict or affect an individual person’s general right to keep and bear arms, including firearms, firearm accessories or ammunition … shall be treated as if they are null, void and of no effect in Columbia County, Oregon.”

The court’s ruling, however, will force the county to follow all current state gun laws.

Ordinance found void

The appeals court, in a decision written by Judge Douglas Tookey, found that the ordinance was preempted by state law and therefore void.

The court determined the county's ordinance would effectively create “a patchwork quilt” of firearms laws across the state, rendering state laws ineffective.

The ordinance was legally void because of a state law that says that the power to regulate firearms “is vested solely in the Legislative Assembly,” aside from a few regulations explicitly permitted by state statute, the appeals court determined.

“Except as expressly authorized by state statute, no county, city or other municipal corporation or district may enact civil or criminal ordinances … to regulate, restrict or prohibit the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition,” the law, ORS 166.170, also reads.

Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum described the Oregon Court of Appeals decision as “some good news” for gun safety in a tweet.

“Common-sense requirements like safe storage and background checks exist to protect all Oregonians,” Rosenblum wrote.

A spokesperson for Columbia County said Wednesday, Feb. 15, that the county commissioners were reviewing the decision and hoped to issue a statement by the end of the week.

History

The Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance was approved in 2018 with 54.9% of votes, followed by the Second Amendment Sanctuary Ordinance in 2020 with 50.9% of votes.

In 2021, Columbia County combined the two ordinances and filed a request for judicial examination with the circuit court.

Columbia County Circuit Court Judge Ted Grove dismissed the county’s case because he said the case did not meet the requirements for the judicial review process.

State law says governing bodies can request judicial review of an ordinance when there is a “justiciable controversy,” but Grove ruled the county had “not demonstrated such a controversy.”

Grove did not rule on the question the county wanted answered: whether or not the voter-approved ordinances are legally enforceable.

The county asked the appeals court to reverse Grove’s ruling on the “justiciability” issue and send the case back to the circuit court to reexamine.

Rosenblum and a group of Columbia County residents represented by local counsel and the gun control advocacy group Everytown Law both asked the appeals court to reverse Grove’s ruling and further rule that the ordinances were not legally enforceable.

'Disturbing implications'

Oregon Court of Appeals Judge James Egan wrote a concurring opinion.

In Egan’s opinion, he called attention to “the disturbing implications” made by Chris Brumbles, who led efforts for both of the anti-gun control measures and is the local coordinator for the Oath Keepers, through his attorney, Tyler Smith.

Smith’s arguments in front of the appeals court referenced alleged United Nations mandates to disarm Americans, which are “a well-documented trope meant to invoke white supremacist, antisemitic fear of a takeover of our country by outsiders and minorities who are manipulated by an elite class of supervillains,” Egan wrote.

“Both counsel’s argument concerning UN mandates and the Ordinance’s solution have their origins in the ideology of white supremacist nationalism which runs contrary to the tenets of our constitutional republic,” Egan wrote.