News @lemmy.world ickplant @lemmy.world 1 yr. ago

Voter-approved Oregon gun control law violates the state constitution, judge rules

apnews.com Voter-approved Oregon gun control law violates the state constitution, judge rules

An Oregon judge has ruled that a voter-approved gun control law violates the state constitution. The decision on Tuesday continues to block it from taking effect and casts fresh doubt over the future of the embattled measure.

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.

307

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context

307 comments

Huh, almost like things can and should change after it was written. So fuck the 2nd amendment and anyone that defends it.
- I think it was Jefferson who argued the Constitution should have been re-written every 10 years?
  
  Let me see if I can find the quote...
  
  19 years...
  
  "Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19. years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right."
  
  Madison was the one to kill that idea.
  
  But as it stands, the 2nd Amendment is the law of the land. You don't have to like it, and there are things you can do about it:
  
  Get an Amendment started. You have to get 290 votes in the House and 67 votes in the Senate. Then get it ratified by 34 State Houses.
  
  Get it re-interpreted by the Supreme Court. You do this by electing Democratic Presidents in '24 and '28. That gives a solid Democratic White House until 2032.
  
  The Supreme Court leans 6-3 Conservative.
  The two oldest judges are Thomas (75) and Alito (73). If they are replaced by a Democratic President, that will turn the court back 5-4 Liberal.
  
  When you look at the next three oldest though: Sotomayor (69), Roberts (68), Kagan (63).
  
  It doesn't do much good to flip Thomas and Alito in the next 10 years, then lose Sotomayor, Kagan, and a reliable swing vote like Roberts 5-10 years after that.
  
  So now you're looking at having to have Democrats hold the White House in '24, '28, '32, '36 and possibly '40.
  
  Doesn't writing that all out make you want to cry? The futility of being able to prevent my child from growing up knowing they are simply a target makes me have trouble breathing. I just want it to stop.
  
  Helping other people understand the full ramifications of what they're talking about actually makes me kind of proud.
  
  On any hot-button issue, there's a lot of uneducated opinion and emotion on both sides, if I can help guide even one person through to a better understanding of what it all means and what they can do, then I'm not going to cry over it.
  
  If folks on the left want to do with guns what folks on the right did with abortion, it can be done... All you need is 50 years and a bunch of Supreme Court justices.
  
  The thing that I find funny is that through ALL this, nobody has asked me "Well, what would YOU do if you're so smart?"
  
  Well...
  
  I'd give up trying to ban guns. It's money and energy wasted on an impossibility.
  
  Examine what CAN be done knowing that banning guns is not an option.
  
  For example:
  
  The ATF form to buy a gun already blocks certain kinds of people from buying a gun. For example: If you're indicted or convicted of a felony, you can't own a gun.
  
  We need an analysis of recent shootings and determine how we could change the laws to have prevented them without banning guns.
  
  Look at the guy who shot up Michigan State:
  
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Michigan_State_University_shooting
  
  He was previously arrested on a felony gun charge, was allowed to plead to a misdemeanor, did his time, did his probation, bought more guns and shot up the place.
  
  Here's a wild idea... maybe make it so gun offenses, misdemeanor or felony, BOTH block you from future gun ownership. Ya think? You've already proven you can't be trusted with a gun.
  
  Or maybe, just maybe, make it so felony gun charges can't be pled down to a misdemeanor? Felony or nothing.
  
  Each shooting exposes holes in our existing laws that can and should be fixed, but if we get hung up on "well ban guns, hurhurhur" nothing will ever get done.
  
  Look at the Maine shooter:
  
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Lewiston_shootings
  
  We were SO CLOSE to stopping that guy before he did anything.
  
  He bought the guns before having auditory hallucinations that landed him in a mental hospital in New York for two weeks.
  
  While New York has a red flag law, he wasn't a resident of New York. It didn't apply to him.
  
  Army sent him home, banned him from handling THEIR guns, but Maine doesn't have a red flag law which would have allowed the state to seize weapons.
  
  So what could we have done? Well... how about getting every state to have a red flag law? Heck, how about a FEDERAL red flag law that could be invoked by, say, the Army, that would apply to all states a soldier might live in?
  
  Again, ya think?
  
  These are the common sense laws we can pass right now, and no Amendment or Supreme Court change is required to do it.
  
  Thank you I guess. The dispassionate very long posts make people not want to ask you what you think because it doesn't get our hearts racing I suppose. It also very much feels like you are defending and therefore encouraging the status quo by shooting down, pun intended, everyone's suggestions by quoting established precedent, which we now know means nothing. So it follows that we assume you like things as they stand now whether that is true or not. Why not offer your suggestions much much earlier? No one else is waiting to be asked what they think.
  
  Why are red flags laws acceptable but licensing and permitting isn't? Why are all guns not classified as "destructive devices". That is their intended purpose. Why isn't a "basic gun" only single round rifles?
  
  Lewiston is my home town. We don't have 50 years.
  
  The left needs to spend money. That's what this all boils down to to me.
  
  Red Flag laws are acceptable because, before someone has their guns taken away, they do get due process in a court of law.
  
  So somebody gets flagged, they go to court, they get to face their accuser, they get to defend themselves, after all that, a neutral 3rd party (the Judge) makes the call.
  
  That court process is the key thing that defines who can buy a gun and what goes into a background check.
  
  So, for example, the Parkland shooter had been reccomended for an involuntary hold but it never went through a court and a judge. Because of that, it was never applied to his background check and he bought his guns free and clear.
  
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkland_high_school_shooting
  
  You would think, with all of his problems, SOMETHING would have fouled his background check. Nope! I'd suggest we overhaul what does or does not appear in a background check and make sure kids like this can't get access to guns.
  
  As written today most red flag laws do not grant due process and will likely be struck down for violation of the 5th ammendment before 2nd amendment arguments are even considered.
  
  It varies greatly by state, I agree there should be a national standard.

You've viewed 307 comments.