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]
    19•1 year ago

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    That the second amendment yet everyone ignores the WELL REGLATED part every fucking time.

    To me that reads that having back ground checks and etc fits perfectly into the second amendment.

    But the Goddamm corrupt courts keep ignoring the entirety of the constitution.

      • @[email protected]
        8•1 year ago

        Still needed to be regulated so they saw a need to make sure that they well trained etc. That didn’t want just anyone to be armed. Today they don’t care if you’re crazy as shit and threatened to kill loads of school kids. The right wants no regulation at all.

        I swear we will get this issue fixed soon as one of these nuts start targeting the alt right and GOP.

          • @[email protected]English
            3•1 year ago

            No, it’s a right because it was deemed necessary to the security of a free state. But the individual right to bear arms was meant to be as part of a “well-regulated” militia, not simply as “everyone can have whatever weapon they want.”

            Even our current very loose and I would argue inaccurate interpretation of the 2nd does not contemplate the idea that private citizens should be allowed to own tanks or heavy machine guns or SAMs without a ton of oversight.

            And of course none of this touches on the elephant in the room which is the rather obvious fact that if we take originalism seriously, then we have to concede that Madison’s conception of the 2nd as being “necessary to the security of a free state,” no longer applies since he was specifically concerned with large-scale civil insurrections such as Shay’s Rebellion or slave uprisings, and we know very well that militias can play no role in putting down such incidents in a modern context, and to the contrary, generally only serve to exacerbate tensions and escalate violence.

      • @[email protected]
        7•1 year ago

        I love seeing this argument because nothing makes it clearer that your views aren’t the product of any kind of critical thought, you’ve just been handed an excuse to keep doing what you want and you’ve accepted it with no further questions.

        Because even if we just let you have “well regulated means operating well, not subject to regulations”, gun-owners in America still don’t meet that definition.

        What good is a militia member who can’t demonstrate basic competence and safety with their weapon, isn’t required to meet any standard of fitness or miltary training, that potentially has a history of punching their wife?

        And of course, the founding fathers were absolutely aware of this problem.

        Washington spoke of his attempt to recruit from local militias by saying “you may, with almost equal success, attempt to raize the Dead to Life again, as the force of this country”.

        In a letter to his nephew he stated “I am wearied to death all day with a variety of perplexing circumstances, disturbed at the conduct of the militia, whose behavior and want of discipline has done great injury to the other troops, who never had officers, except in a few instances, worth the bread they eat.”

        So tell us more about how “this is what the founding fathers wanted”.

          • @[email protected]
            5•1 year ago

            Aww, don’t be shy, tell us what his motivations were. It was to keep us safe from tyranny right?

            Nope, he was concerned Congress couldn’t be relied on to arm the militas they used for slave control. He wasn’t even shy about it. Is this something that’s still important to you? How many school shootings would you say its worth?

            Of course, he also spoke of how “An armed and trained militia is the firmest bulwark of republics”, so I guess you’ve only got a small pool of quotes to choose from where he doesn’t undermine your case.

            But hey, if “well regulated” means “able to murder unarmed black people”, the pro-gun community really has built a well regulated militia, because some far-right fuckstain does that almost every month.

            Edit: Oh look, here’s a well regulated militia now.