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]
      11•1 year ago

      Tell me you don’t understand the meaning of semantics without telling me you don’t understand the meaning of semantics…

      You literally argued that the Supreme Court would strike down any need for specialty licensing for purchasing weapons in this same thread as well. Jesus fucking christ. Did you grow up underneath power lines or live in a house with leaded paint or something?

      If you need a FFL in order to purchase or trade in automatic weapons then by default those weapons are functionally banned from being sold to the general public. This is precisely why I lead with my comment about jerking off over bad legal arguments that tip-toe around the enforcement of real world solutions that can actually have a legitimate impact on gun violence. So again, from the bottom of my heart, get fukt. 😘

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

          If I can barge into this comment chain, the confusion seems to stem from your initial comment.

          It’s not really “common sense” though. The Constitution clearly says you have a right to own a gun.

          The state can’t then come through and require a permit to own a gun.

          It’s a Right, not a “right”*.

          Isn’t the application of an FFL the state requiring a permit to own a (certain kind of) gun? Likewise, the state telling folks they can or can’t own guns just because of a few measly felonies…isn’t that against a strict interpretation of the Second Amendment? Doesn’t that deny them a “Right”?

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

              Sorry, I took a more international route with the terminology: I meant state as in The State, not an individual state in the USA. Federal laws restricting the purchase of a firearm is IMHO the State interfering with the Second Amendment, if you’re taking a severely strict interpretation of it.

              So that’s my question: is it OK to have the Federal restrictions on what you can buy (e.g. requiring a permit!), and from disallowing Felons? I’m a gun owner myself, but if you go back to what I opened with: the discrepancy between “The state can’t then come through and require a permit to own a gun” and seemingly OK with some Federal oversight is a hangup for a lot of us. If a handful of laws are common sense (no felons), why can’t we enact other common sense laws?