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.

  • @[email protected]English
    15•1 year ago

    For reference, the bit in the Oregon state constitution is as follows:

    Section 27. Right to bear arms; military subordinate to civil power. The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence [sic] of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.]

    Pretty similar to the US constitution’s second amendment. If SCOTUS was consistent, I think they’d rule in parallel to what’s been established elsewhere for licensing, purchasing restrictions, etc.

    • SeaJ
      10•1 year ago

      That is much more clear than the 2nd Amendment. That mentions the right to bear arms for self defense. The 2nd Amendment mentions the right to bear arms to defend the state.

    • Natanael
      6•1 year ago

      So then people who have a history of using them for crime which is very much not self defense ought not apply?

    • @[email protected]
      3•1 year ago

      “The court finds that 10-round magazine bans are no panacea to prevent a mass shooter,” he wrote.

      “People tend to believe these events are prolific and happening all the time with massive levels of death and injury,” he added. “The court finds this belief, though sensationalized by the media, is not validated by the evidence.”

      Yeah, the judge sounded more interested in his own opinions than the law.