Oregon's Measure 114 is pretty controversial. After all, it puts some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. While it was passed via a ballot initiative versus the legislature, that doesn't mean it's good law.

After all, the public has supported all kinds of awful things in the past.

Luckily, a district court judge has found the measure unconstitutional. The challenge process isn't finished since the state is appealing.

And they asked the next court up the line to put a hold on the previous ruling.

Lawyers for the state are asking the Oregon Court of Appeals to put a hold on a Harney County judge’s ruling that found the voter-approved gun control Measure 114 is unconstitutional while they appeal the decision.

The state argued that Circuit Judge Robert S. Raschio got it wrong and also urged the appellate court to expedite the state’s appeal.

If a hold were to be granted, the measure could take effect for the first time.

“Measure 114 is a reasonable use of legislative authority to address increasing harms and threats from gun violence and mass shootings,” said the state’s motion filed Friday. “The statute is therefore facially constitutional. And yet, the trial court enjoined its enforcement, reasoning that the statute is facially unconstitutional under Article I, section 27. The trial court’s determination lacks support in law or fact.”

The Harney County gun owners who filed the suit challenging the voter-approved measure oppose the state’s hold requestand intend to file a response, according to the court record.

News station KGW8 released a story on Sunday saying that the court denied the request, though that story is no longer available for some reason. 

Regardless, despite what attorneys for the state claim, Measure 114 doesn't do anything to improve public safety. What we know about mass shootings, for example, is that most such shooters don't have felony convictions. They would still get guns even under the state's laws.

More importantly, though, we don't forfeit our rights simply because the state says they need to infringe on them to stop crime.

Even if criminals somehow obeyed the law, our rights are still our rights. They don't go away when it's inconvenient for the state to acknowledge them. If they do, they're privileges, and our ability to keep and bear arms is no privilege to be granted by the authorities only when they feel like allowing them.

It. Is. A. Right.

The Bruen decision laid down very clear instructions on what was required to find a gun control law constitutional and, frankly, Measure 114 doesn't, well, measure up.

We may have to wait on the actual decision versus whatever KGW reported, but I don't see the ruling being any different, no matter what the judges might personally prefer.

And Oregon will have to learn to deal with disappointment in their ability to infringe on people's right to keep and bear arms. Hell, they'll have to learn to deal with the fact that it is actually a right and not one subject to restrictions they'd never tolerate for any right they personally approve of.