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.

  • PennomiEnglish
    20•1 year ago

    Background checks for gun ownership absolutely is a common sense law. Sadly the state constitution is poorly written in this case, so that needs fixed before a measure like this can be approved.

        • @[email protected]
          8•1 year ago

          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.

            • @[email protected]English
              5•1 year ago

              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).

          • @[email protected]
            8•1 year ago

            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”?

              • @[email protected]
                6•1 year ago

                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

                  • @[email protected]
                    5•1 year ago

                    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

                  • Flying Squid
                    4•1 year ago

                    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.