Oregon Measure No. 43

This initiative would ban certain firearms defined by the initiative as assault weapons and ammunition magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. Specifically, the initiative would prohibit the manufacture, import, sale, purchase, transfer, or possession of certain firearms and make violations a Class B felony

Oregon Measure No. 44

This measure provides regulations regarding firearms and assigns classes of violations to each potential infraction. The measure would require:[1]

firearms to be secured in a container with tamper-resistant locks and a trigger or cable lock engaged unless being carried by the owner;

firearms to remain with a trigger or cable lock engaged or in a container with tamper-resistant locks when being transferred; and

firearm owners to report lost or stolen firearms to a law enforcement agency in the jurisdiction in which the loss or theft occurred within 24 hours of discovering the loss or theft.


The Union County Commissioners held a work session Wednesday to talk about two Oregon gun measures.

Oregon Initiative Measure 43, which aims to ban the possession of assault weapons capable of holding more than 10 rounds, and Measure 44, which aims to put regulations on firearms, have been circulating through the state as petitions are gathered.

Last Friday, the Oregon Supreme Court stalled Measure 43. Opponents have argued the ballot language “uses the politically charged and emotionally laden words, ‘assault weapons,’ and ‘large capacity magazines.’ The description is also misleading, argumentative, and deceptive because it implies the measure applies only to a limited and belligerent group of ‘assault weapons’ gun owners,” according to an Associated Press article.

A number of counties in the eastern part of the state, including Wallowa County, have passed resolutions opposing the measures. The counties have stated they support the Second Amendment and will not abide by the measures if they pass in November.

In months prior, Union County residents have proposed the same resolution, requesting the commissioners put an ordinance on the November ballot that, if passed would preserve the Second Amendment in the county.

In April, a group of opponents of the measure told the commissioners they want the ordinance to state that Union County will preserve the right to “keep and bear arms (as) originally understood; in self-defense and preservation, and in defense of one’s community and country” and to stipulate that any regulation violating the Second Amendment shall be deemed unconstitutional in Union County.

See complete story in Friday's Observer