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]
      16•1 year ago

      That’s what makes gun control such a difficult problem. People seem to forget that it is a right and those have extra weight behind them. While I want better gun control, I also don’t want our rights to be easily thrown away. The fact that the idea of a constitutional amendment seems so far fetched right now should be strong enough evidence that the system, as it was designed, has failed.

        • @[email protected]
          3•1 year ago

          In order to get a new Amendment off the ground, you need a 2/3rds vote in the House. 290 votes.

          … Or an Article V convention forced by states. I’d wager money it’s going to happen in the next 25 years.

            • Ooops
              6•1 year ago

              They will obviously never try to define “woke”. At this point it was intentionally shaped into trigger word to tell their moronic voters that something is bad without having to bring any actual arguments. An actual definition would hurt this prupose.

            • bedrooms
              6•1 year ago

              On the other hand, it only takes 5 judges to reinterpret the constitution…

    • be_excellent_to_each_other
      2•1 year ago

      “We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense.

      I kinda feel there’s a false equivalence there. I can’t kill arbitrary people as a result of exercising my first and sixth amendment rights.

      Doesn’t the right of others around you to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness have equal standing? Seems reasonable to me to take steps to ensure you are less likely take away life by accident or malicious intent.

        • be_excellent_to_each_other
          2•1 year ago

          I didn’t say it was.

          We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

          So we no longer find these truths to be self-evident, because they are in the wrong document? Fair point that the standing is therefore not equal. Nonetheless I quite value my life, and find it reasonable to expect my armed neighbors to be trained in a way to minimize the risk to me from from their 2A rights.

          Still true that exercising the 1st and 6th don’t empower you to kill any random person you see. The court’s argument is a false equivalence.

            • be_excellent_to_each_other
              2•1 year ago

              So what about the rest of my comment?

              I kinda feel there’s a false equivalence there. I can’t kill arbitrary people as a result of exercising my first and sixth amendment rights.

                • be_excellent_to_each_other
                  2•1 year ago

                  No no. I can’t say a magic word to my neighbor because his dog pissed me off when it shit in my yard and cause him to drop dead.

                  Nor can I non-maliciously say a word by accident that causes some random person in my vicinity to die.

                  But if I’m an irresponsible gun owner I can do both those things and more. Hence the false equivalence here:

                  “We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense.