Interesting line of reasoning from Salem considering New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (2022):"Koch countered in court filings Friday that Raschio made "fundamental legal" errors and acted beyond his discretion.
Oregon Constitution's Article 1, Sec. 27, protects only the right to bear arms commonly used by Oregonians for self-defense in 1859 and earlier, and doesn't relate to magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, Koch argued."
We have already recognized in Heller at least one way in which the Second Amendment's historically fixed meaning applies to new circumstances: Its reference to "arms" does not apply "only [to] those arms in existence in the 18th century." 554 U. S., at 582. "Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding." Ibid. (citations omitted). Thus, even though the Second Amendment's definition of "arms" is fixed according to its historical understanding, that general definition covers modern instruments that facilitate armed self-defense.