A voter-approved Oregon gun control law violates the state constitution, a judge ruled Tuesday, continuing to block it from taking effect and casting fresh doubt over the future of the embattled measure.
The law requires people to undergo a criminal background check and complete a gun safety training course in order to obtain a permit to buy a firearm. It also bans high-capacity magazines.
The plaintiffs in the federal case, which include the Oregon Firearms Federation, have appealed the ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The case could potentially go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
This law had nothing to do with background checks. Oregon and federal law already require background checks.
This required a special permit to purchase a gun which is not allowed.
No permit necessary for tanks and nukes then, right?
Nope! You can buy a tank online. Probably will set you back about as much as a new Ferrari for a restored Cold War example, but no permit required.
Munitions included? Who wants a gun with the trigger welded?
No, but you can probably apply to the ATF for a destructive device registration if you make its gun operational.
I think you also need to do the same for each shell. I know you have to do this for grenade launchers, I’m assuming it’s the same for tank shells (especially exploding rounds, not sure about non-exploding).
The 2nd Amendment applies to BEARABLE arms. Tanks, nukes, missiles aren’t bearable.
Caetano - 2016
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/577/14-10078/
“The Second Amendment covers all weapons that may be defined as “bearable arms,” even if they did not exist when the Bill of Rights was drafted and are not commonly used in warfare.”
Got it. So as long as I can carry it, I should never need a permit. RPGs? Stinger missiles? Or does it have to use bullets?
And can you give me any logical reason to make that distinction other than “those are the words in the Constitution”?
RPGs, grenades and the like fall under “destructive devices” and as such aren’t covered under the 2nd Amendment. They’re regulated under the firearms act of 1968.
https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/weapons-firearms/is-it-legal-own-hand-grenades
Right. And I’m asking you to give me a reason for the distinction, not proof that the distinction has been made.
I know that’s how the law has been interpreted up to this point. I’m asking you to explain why you believe it to be the correct interpretation
The reason for the distinction between firearms and “destructive devices” is the firearms act of 1968.
I think the root cause for the confusion is people forget that the agency isn’t the ATF, it’s the ATFE (I guess the “E” is silent? :)
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.
Explosives are their own category, it’s right there in the name.
No, the firearms act is the thing that distinguished. It is not itself the justification for distinguishing.
Right now all you’re saying is “because that’s the law”. I want to know why you think that’s how the ought to be
What I think is totally irrelevant. I’m not a lawyer or a judge. All I can tell you is the way it is, if you don’t LIKE that, there is a path to change it, talk to your legislators about writing a new law.
So you agree that armor-piercing ammunition should not be legal, correct? It shoots from a gun, but it explodes. So it is a destructive device.
The ATF has banned armor piercing rounds specifically for that reason, but they also have a (17 page!) document listing how, when, and why certain armor piercing rounds fall under a “sporting exception”.
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/general-notice/armor-piercing-ammunition
“Specifically, the definition of “armor piercing ammunition” in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(B) provides: (B) The term “armor piercing ammunition” means— (i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper or depleted uranium; or (ii) a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile.”
It would appear the ban was intended to restrict the sale of what the press hysterically called “Cop Killer Bullets” back then. Phrase was all the rage. No mention of rifle rounds, only handgun rounds, and rifle rounds would later be explicitly allowed by the ATF:
"Between 1986 and 2011, ATF received few exemption requests for armor piercing ammunition. In 1986, ATF exempted 5.56 mm (.223) SS109 and M855 “green tip” ammunition containing a steel core. Similarly, in 1992, ATF exempted .30-06 M2AP cartridges. Since 2011, however, ATF has received approximately 30 exemption requests for armor piercing ammunition. Several developments since 1992 have spurred the influx of exemption requests.
ATF understands that one of the primary factors is the increased pressure on the ammunition industry to produce suitable hunting alternatives to lead ammunition. The widespread use of lead ammunition for hunting has been linked to lead contamination in certain species that consume carrion and “gut piles” containing remnants of lead projectiles. The endangered California Condor, which scavenges on carrion, has proven particularly vulnerable to this type of lead poisoning. The impact of lead poisoning on the Condor and other species has resulted in at least one State banning the use of lead ammunition in certain environmentally sensitive areas, and has generated substantial advocacy for broader availability of non-lead ammunition. Generally, rifles are the type of firearm predominately used for hunting purposes, particularly the type of hunting conducted in sensitive environmental areas such as the California Condor range. It thus appears that rifle-based hunting is the primary driving force behind the market demand for lead-alternative ammunition made with the metals listed in section 921(a)(17)©."
Oh, man, I had TOTALLY not considered that angle. Yeah, as states ban lead ammunition, that’s going to spur development of alternatives which would ordinarily fall under the armor piercing definition unless they are granted a sporting exception.
I wonder if the “straight wall” ammo requirements had a similar impact?
https://www.remington.com/big-green-blog/what-states-can-you-hunt-with-a-straight-all-cartridge.html