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.

  • CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    10 months ago

    “Clearly says” just as long as you ignore the part about being in a well regulated militia.

    I suppose you support felons being allowed to own firearms again too, right?

    • TonyStew@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      I certainly support the scope of that limitation being reduced to violent felony charges, if not all the way to charges related to unlawful possession/use of a firearm with how the state stretches its definitions of laws to oppress people acting against it, like considering organized protest against cop city “domestic terrorism”, bail funds for them felony money laundering, and distributing flyers containing public information to members of the public “felony intimidation”. Shit, it’s a felony to shelter yourself while homeless in Tennessee. I’m against denying any of them the right to arms for life because they pitched a tent as strongly as I’m against denying them the right to vote because of it.

    • Toggol@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      10 months ago

      As long as it’s a well-regulated militia of felons, that’s fine. /s

    • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      Are you interested in understanding the historical context and meaning of the second amendment?

      Or do you just want to argue against it?

      This is a serious question.

      • prole@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        There are ~2 centuries of US history before the Heller decision… Don’t forget that historical context.

        • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          There was 3+ centuries of slavery in the US prior to the 14th amendment. Until the Civil Rights Acts, Jim Crow laws had been upheld for a century.

          We can also look at that historical context and see that the gov’t was often motivated by systemic racism to enact gun control.

          Historical context isn’t a panacea.

          • prole@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            10 months ago

            Ok, but do you actually think that’s what Heller was about? Preventing the government from enacting racist gun control laws? Really?

            Why don’t we ask Philando Castile about how much Heller helped him (side note, no support from the NRA on that one. Huh.).

            • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              10 months ago

              The point of Heller was saying that guns in common use couldn’t be banned (and was affirmed to apply to states as well as D.C. in McDonald v. Chicago); many of the gun control laws that prevented ownership of firearms were racist in origin, and so saying that the gov’t can’t do that thing has the effect of invalidating laws rooted in racism.

              One of the people that was originally part of the Heller case was a black community activist, and the reason she was removed from the case was lack of standing. She had not actually applied for a permit to own a firearm in the city–because she knew it was illegal–so she got kicked from the case. Heller was the only one of the original plaintiffs that tried to apply for a permit, hence the reason he’s the face. (Heller–the person–was/is a douchebag.)

              The fact that cops murder black people is a problem, sure. Do you think that they’re going to stop if black people aren’t armed? The NRA is a rotten organization; I’d recommend the Firearms Policy Coalition as being one that’s more representative of the interests of gun owners, rather than christian nationalists.

              • prole@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                10 months ago

                Yeah. Scalia went against his claims of originalism in Heller in order to protect minority gun ownership. Fuck off.

                • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  He didn’t do it for that purpose, but that’s still the legal effect.

                  I don’t get it why so many libs–and I mean that in the worst possible way–seem to think that having cops be the only people that can legally be armed is going to have good outcomes. Defund the police because ACAB but also only cops should have guns because they’re totally trustworthy with lethal ordnance. Meanwhile, those of us that have lived outside of upper-middle class urban areas know that cops can’t arrive quickly in an emergency, or simply don’t.

                  • prole@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    10 months ago

                    seem to think that having cops be the only people that can legally be armed

                    Did I say that?

                    You fucking idiots act like the US is the only country that exists in the world. Why don’t you look at gun violence/crime in countries where even the cops don’t have guns.

                    The US is way too far gone to ever go to something like that. Half of the country has made firearms a defining feature of their personality. They would literally rather die (and probably take their entire family with them).

    • jordanlund@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Again, the word “militia” meant something different back then, and the Supreme Court ruled in D.C. vs. Heller (2008) that Militia membership is NOT a requirement.

      And no, felons shouldn’t own weapons. If it were it up to me I’d expand it.

      If you look at the Michigan State shooter, he was arrested previously on a felony gun charge, pled out to a misdemeanor, did his time, bought more guns, and shot up the place.

      I’d argue that previous gun charges, felony OR missemeanor, should bar you from future gun ownership. You’ve already proven you can’t be trusted with a gun.

        • Beemo Dinosaurierfuß@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          10 months ago

          Everyone gets it but you.

          The fascists are armed to their teeth because dumb fucks following dumb rules allowed it.
          That’s the reason they are NOT armed to their teeth where I live and if they try to get armed they run a real risk of going to jail. I read about it every other week, because they keep trying and fortunately most keep failing.

          And that’s why I as a not so young, but tattooed and obviously liberal looking dude can walk around without a care in the world and I train how to choke a mf out just for my personal enjoyment and not for any real world need to.

            • winterayars@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              10 months ago

              I’ll never understand this bizarre fucking response. “Oh it’s so hard to fix this we should just all lie down and die instead”. It’s everywhere but guns and climate change seem to draw it out the most.

                • Beemo Dinosaurierfuß@feddit.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  Easy.

                  If you got a gun without permit you go to jail.
                  There is a timeframe in which to give away your gun, maybe you even get compensated if you do.
                  Enforcement is key obviously.

                  Poof 99% of guns gone.
                  Worked just fine in Australia which I think had more guns per person than the US but I might be mistaken and can’t be arsed to look up a source for you to ignore.