1y ago

Voter-approved Oregon gun control law violates the state constitution, judge rules

apnews.com Voter-approved Oregon gun control law violates the state constitution, judge rules

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.

307 comments

I mean if a common sense law like that violates the state constitution, it does seems like the problem is in the constitution or how it's interpreted, not the law…
- Nothing that's controversial can reasonably be called common sense.
  
  No. Common sense is controversial because of the sheer volume of stupid people that refuse it. It isn't just gun control. It's everything.
- 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"*.
  
  So, the first amendment gives you the right to free speech, and yet inciting a riot or other dangerous forms of speech are still not protected.
  Arms does not mean guns. It just means weapons and/or armor. Dangerous things can and should be protected. Not all weapons need be for the public, as I’m pretty sure no one would be okay with any civilian having their own nuke stockpile. I don’t see why we can’t dial it back a bit more to try and reduce access to guns when we’ve continually seen how much destruction they can cause.
  
  The Supreme Court has already allowed restrictions on automatic weapons pre-1986, and there is no ability for manufacturers to sell new automatic weapons to the general public post-1986. Quit bending over backwards to try to make bad (and/or) selective legal theories make sense. They don't and you're a shill. Guns are an issue, and if you think they aren't you can get fukt.
  
  "Clearly says" just as long as you ignore the part about being in a well regulated militia.
  I suppose you support felons being allowed to own firearms again too, right?
  
  If you're gonna quote the right, then quote all of it, it's for the purpose of a militia.
  Last I checked none of the UA citizens are in one because we have a very well organized military instead which was the immediate down fall of what were typically loosely organized groups.
  
  Arms. Not guns.
  We've decided it's not okay for someone to have a Patriot missile, nuclear landmine, warships, and many other arms.
  
  It says state constitution.
  And if the state voted against it, seems they should change the constitution.
  Just like they should be doing with a bunch of amendments at the federal level to the US constitution.
  
  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.
  
  No court has ever interpreted any right granted by the constitution as absolutely as you believe. All rights have limits.
  
  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.
  
  But guns cost money. That barrier needs to be removed.
  
  You have describe the problem perfectly. 2A is an extremely blunt law with zero nuance. At least that's how it has been interpreted by the courts. And that's a clearly a huge problem. If the amendment allowed for common sense laws, that would be one thing, but we keep hearing over and over that 2A simply doesn't allow it. Well then 2A is the problem.
  
  Exactly! But there is a LOT of wiggle room with "anyone who engages in insurrection can't hold public office" and "you have the freedom to not practice anyone else's religion!"
  
  Yet, states are able to take away a person's Right to vote when they go to prison.
  
  ROFL!

Fixed the headline - Judge rules that Americans need more mass shootings before anything changes.
- Fixed the headline - Judge rules that Americans need more mass shootings ~~before anything changes.~~
  FTFY
- "Man uses a fork to rake leaves, rails against tree for the fork not working"

We can’t have reduced gun crimes in America. It would send the wrong message to the rest of the world that we’re reasonable and give a shit about our own people.
- Oh the horror!
  
  Right?

This will be overturned. This judge is known for making politically motivated decisions. There is a reason this was filed specifically in Harney County where this yahoo presides.
Guaranteed this is not the last time this will be in the news.
- I hope so, will keep an eye on it.
  
  Is there a !remindme in 2 years function in Lemmy?

States rights people really confused prolly.

Democracy is when the majority of people vote for a law but because rich people from 100+ years ago say otherwise it doesn't get enacted.

C'mon, this is easy... all you need is a large gathering of BLM people or antifa packing ARs and boom - this law will mysteriously pass before the media frenzy has had a chance to get it's shoes on.
- I've been saying this for a decade. Let's get the sikhs out open carrying AKs.
  
  your projection is telling
- Nah, the result of that would be the national guard getting called and an oppressive use of force to put everyone back in their places. The media would either briefly display it in the news ticker mentioning that our national heros quelled a local terrorist attack or just say nothing about it.
  
  the result of that would be the national guard
  Do you know why they never called the national guard on the Black Panthers? Or why the pig never dared to confront them directly?
- We already have heavily armed BLM and Antifa folks. Oregon contains multitudes.
  The law in question was doomed to fail. I'm halfway sure it was put on the ballot just to encourage pro gun people to vote.
- Except even during the most destructive and violent of BLM riots had armed participants, the pro civil rights people continued to stand by gun rights. You've been proven wrong and too ignorant to realize it, or too dishonest to admit it.
  
  destructive and violent of BLM riots
  Oh, it was BLM doing the violence? It wasn't the pigs and their neo-nazi proxies?
  pro civil rights people
  Oh, it's the white supremacists that are "pro-civil rights", is it?
  I think you've just unmasked yourself, fashboi.

Breaking: one unelected person with an agenda overrules entire state, imposes his personal interpretation of the law

People from around the developed world looking at America...shaking my head...
- Trust me, Americans who understand what's going on are shaking their heads too. And furiously voting and getting ready to vote. But are there enough of them?
  
  Like many other systemic problems, our voting isn't working. Case in point, your article. As for how we can actually effect meaningful change? No idea. It's frustrating.

And the 21st amendment to the U.S. constitution violated the 18th amendment U.S. constitution. They should have passed this as a state constitutional amendment. Note that the judge didn't say in violated the U.S. constitution, just the state - and another one said that it didn't violate the 2nd amendment.

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.
- 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.
  
  This is true, the 2nd Amendment specifically states that the right to keep and bear arms is necessary for "a Free State".
  However, enter the Supreme Court:
  https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/
  Really, the history of the issue and the citations they made are all worth reading before you get to the conclusion:
  "As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights,[Footnote 27] banning from the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” 478 F. 3d, at 400, would fail constitutional muster."
- So then people who have a history of using them for crime which is very much not self defense ought not apply?
  
  If they're convicted felons, yes.
- “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.

So just pass it as a constitutional amendment

We've been talking locally about this law since it passed and it's clear, in the wake of other court rulings, it would not stand.
Notably:
Maryland - struck down today as well:
https://apnews.com/article/maryland-handgun-license-law-ruling-2094424b0cea9e6a2eda34f280cb1156
Or the New York law which required special permission to carry. If the Supreme Court blocked that, there's no way they'd allow a special permit to own.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/597/20-843/
"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.
New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered."
- 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.
  
  Not only is it a right, but given the overall dysfunction in Washington, changing it is an impossibility.
  In order to get a new Amendment off the ground, you need a 2/3rds vote in the House. 290 votes.
  They can't get 290 votes to decide who their own leader should be.
  They can't get 290 votes to agree to bounce George Santos.
  There's ZERO hope they'd get 290 on ANY amendment, not just guns.
- “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.
  
  Y'know, we really ought to pass a law that makes it illegal to kill people...
  
  Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness aren't Constitutional guarantees. Nor is the statement that all men are created equal. That's the Declaration of Independence. ;)

If they had left out the magazine restriction then this probably would have been a slam dunk bill.

so change that shitty constitution

Can you imagine the response if Congress passed a law that said you must complete "voter training" prior to each election before being allowed to vote? Because we all know that there are lots of voters who know absolutely nothing about the people and issues they are voting on, simply voting as their party wishes. And what if the voter had to pay for that training? Do we set aside the Bill of Rights for the overall good of the country?
I get that there is a big problem with shootings. But these gun control measures do nothing other than make politicians points with their constituents. Live in a state that bans assault weapons and >10 round magazines? Go to a state without those restrictions and buy what you want - if you're going to commit a crime, why care that you are breaking the law by doing so? Anyone with a little mechanical skill, a hobby lathe, and a 3D printer can manufacture a fully automatic gun. And imagine the carnage if an unbalanced person waited for a windy day, stole a gasoline tanker, fitted it with an electric pump and nozzles, then started a huge wildfire just upwind of a major city. Take away guns and the crazies will turn to other means of carrying our their killing spree.
Want a real solution? That's going to cost you. Universal mental health care, free education and job training, and programs to find "loners", who are involved in most mass shootings, then evaluate their risk to the public and themselves.
- Respectfully, reality doesn't agree with your opinion. In states where elected officials have taken action to pass gun safety laws, fewer people die by gun violence. These laws absolutely work.
  Anyone with a little mechanical skill, a hobby lathe, and a 3D printer can manufacture a fully automatic gun
  Yeah, sounds so simple. Totally not more effort than walking into a store and buying one.
  Universal mental health care, free education and job training
  Totally agree there - and there is no reason we can't have that AND reasonable gun laws. Never understood the false dichotomy.
  programs to find “loners”, who are involved in most mass shootings
  I'm glad you put "loners" in quotations because these people didn't get radicalized alone. Top law enforcement officials say the biggest domestic terror threat comes from white supremacists. These are not "lone wolves." They have been brainwashed by extreme right-wingers to hate anyone who is different.
  
  Thanks for the well-worded reply. My concern is that we are preventing citizens from exercising a right. Restricting guns seems like the easy thing to do - if you're not a gun rights supporter. I live in a place where it can take law enforcement a while to reach me. Until then, I'm on my own. Being limited to a 10-round magazine and going up against someone with a 100-round rotary magazine could leave me dead. I hope it never happens, but it could. There are illegal pot farms up here, and being suspected of turning one in can get ugly quick.
  We have yet to exhaust other less intrusive ways to curtail gun violence. The fact that all psychological disqualifying conditions are not used to determine gun purchases is appalling to me. Politicians are more concerned that a person might avoid seeking treatment to hide their condition. And how can some who have threatened or committed unwarranted violence on others still buy a firearm? These issues need to be addressed before the government infringes on everyone's right. Instead of legislating to address the least common denominator, stop those who've proven they lack good judgement from obtaining a weapon in the first place.

You folks should educate yourself before blanket statement saying, “Gun control gud, me vote fast for boom boom pow ban.” If you read Measure 114 it’s not at all gun control.
You simply cannot walk into any legitimate firearm store and legally purchase a firearm without filling out paperwork to undergo a background check. Period. So get that out of your head. It’s not possible. You have to fill out a 4473 from any dealer holding an FFL, any legal gun dealer has been issued an FFL by the ATF and is required by FEDERAL law to maintain records of their firearm sales for x amount of years so they can conduct and audit at the drop of a hat.
Measure 114 was pushing for Oregonians to have to take a class, approved by Law Enforcement, in order to apply for a permit to apply to begin the process to buy a firearm. So for my slow friends out there this would be like going to a car dealership, wanting to buy a sedan, having to present to them your state mandated document saying you have taken a class and passed, received a permit to be at the dealership looking at cars, before you can even test drive or start the conversation of purchasing that sedan. Then once you are ready to purchase said car, you have to begin the FEDERALLY mandated background check and jump through a completely different set of hoops.
Measure 114 was also pushed so quickly onto the ballot, Oregon State Police had no time to create curriculum for the mandated course, local law enforcement agencies (who were already facing budget cuts and staff shortages) had to figure a way to process these classes and additional applications and background checks that they never had to deal with.
As for the magazine ban, your typical handgun magazine holds 17 rounds. Again for my slow friends that’s 7 more than the proposed limit of 10. An AR magazine holds 30 rounds. These are not the kinds of magazines that should be the target of a magazine capacity ban. These were specifically designed for effective personal defense. You should look up from medical journals how many rounds from a handgun (9mm or larger) and an AR (.223 or larger) it takes to stop a full grown adult. The answer will surprise you, it’s close to 2/3’s or 66% of a handgun mag for one home invader. That leaves the average person 1.5 rounds short to protect them and their family should, God forbid, the unthinkable happen. Now you add adrenaline, nerves, and whatever other factor in and you realize that person is probably not going to land every shot perfectly on the invader. Now what. Should they just sit there and watch while the invader take advantage of their family?
You’ve cut funding for law enforcement. I’ve sat on hold for 30 minutes while calling in an active rape in a major city waiting for backup to respond. The police can only do so much, we have tied their hands with minimal funding and increased legislation. Is gun control a must absolutely, but educated control is the answer. Not blind support for any bill labeled, “Gun Control.”
- You had me up until "fund the police state" as if US police unions aren't already the most powerful groups in the country to be a member of, as if any state or municipality has meaningfully cracked down on policing abuses, as if the US doesn't already have incarceration rates 5x the next NATO member, as if the US doesn't already spend more on policing than all but 2 nations do on their militaries, as if police spending ever dropped even 1%, and as if supposed funding cuts aren't just city council members shuffling the numbers around while the departments themselves see steady budget growth year-over-year.
  Your experience is simply finding yourself calling in an incident on the wrong street for the wrong person, a call the officers know won't affect their bottom line. It's always been the case, whether passively delaying responses or actively corralling rioters away from wealthy districts. It's not because they're suffering for funding, it's because they know they can get away with it.
  
  I’m sorry but you don’t know what you’re talking about. I feel bad life experiences have led you to feel the way you do but you simply don’t know the truth. I can over another example of calling 911, being placed on hold for 15 minutes, bounced around dispatch centers three times and then finally connected to the correct one and then waiting on scene of a fentanyl overdose for 45 minutes because the nearest available officer, again in a major city, was the only one who could respond.
  These are the decisions of people voting to cut funding. This has nothing to do with police unions, who are funded directly out of the police officers paychecks by the way. If you’d like to discuss police reform, which this country does need, I’d be happy to do that on another forum but this discussion is about gun control. My point with mentioning the police was that we as private citizens are facing fewer and fewer options to protect ourselves. Thank you for your perspective.
- like going to a car dealership, wanting to buy a sedan, having to present to them your state mandated document saying you have taken a class and passed, received a permit to be at the dealership looking at cars, before you can even test drive
  I'm not agreeing or disagreeing as I haven't read M114.
  I don't live in Oregon, but I'm pretty sure dealerships don't let you drive off without a driver's license?
  
  I do live in Oregon and have a nearby dealership with a giant sign that says, "no license needed." And there is no requirement to have a license to buy a car in any state that I've lived in.
- Gonna need some sources on those home invasion stats. I have no horse in this race--it's not my state--but anybody who says it takes more than ten shots to stop an attacker is going to have to show me something to bulk up their credibility. I'm not going to just take your word on that. Even assuming the stat were technically true, if you can't stop a home intruder in ten shots, the magazine isn't the problem.
  Also the car dealership analogy doesn't hold up, as, in fact, you must show proof that you have passed a legally required test before you will be allowed to test drive a car. It's not an outrageous requirement.
  Finally, in what universe is a 30 round AR specifically designed for personal defense?
  
  You obviously don’t understand firearms and this is not the place to educate you on them. I am proud of you for questioning stats on the internet, now go and research them for yourself. Use medical journals as your sources. Or university studies. Wikipedia, Tik Tok and the likes don’t count.
  As far as the car dealership analogy you’ve missed the point. To even begin the conversation you have to have an extra certification. I’m not talking about your driver’s license. And again I am pro gun control.
  As for the AR’s 30 round mag. Research, again through academic sources, the history and purpose of the AR and you’ll understand it’s not a “weapon of mass destruction.” The 30 round capacity is misleading to the firearms capabilities.
  Thank you for your perspective I wish you luck in your educational journey!
- You might have had some decent points, but I'm not going to try an adult discussion with anyone who already talks to me like this before the discussion has even begun:
  Gun control gud, me vote fast for boom boom pow ban.”
  So for my slow friends out there
  Again for my slow friends
  
  That’s your choice. But when it comes to gun control, opposition typically approaches it in an adolescent manner. I’d be happy to hear your point of view and refrain from attacks on your intelligence, but I’d like to see fact based logic like I presented instead of fear based thinking like 99% of the posts on here. Most people read the article title and refused to research further. That’s the point I was proving. People need to think about critical issues before sounding off and impacting lives. Whether it be attacking our pro choice rights, telling someone they can’t marry who they love, or limiting what can be read in a school. Ignorance and fear govern the decisions of the masses.
- "So for my slow friends out there this would be like going to a car dealership, wanting to buy a sedan, having to present to them your state mandated document saying you have taken a class and passed, received a permit to be at the dealership looking at cars, before you can even test drive or start the conversation of purchasing that sedan."
  Oh, Oregon doesn't require that you have a driver's license to drive a car? A driver's license that requires a cursory background check, a written knowledge check and a skills test? You aren't talking about a document like that? Let's go further, every where I've test driven a car, they want proof of insurance too, so you also need an allowance from a corporate, non-government, controlling entity in order to even begin being considered to be allowed to test drive a car?
  Do you think about anything critically, or do you just spout shit and assume that people are going to agree with you, just because you agree with you?
- I agree with 99% of what you said... but I take issue with this:
  "You should look up from medical journals how many rounds from a handgun (9mm or larger) and an AR (.223 or larger) it takes to stop a full grown adult. The answer will surprise you, it’s close to 2/3’s or 66% of a handgun mag for one home invader."
  I'd distinguish "stopping a person" from "stopping a crime". :)
  Yes, your average drugged out perp is not going to go down easy.
  But you don't have to put them down, you just have to get them to leave.
  Every gun owner makes a critical error one time... forgetting to put on hearing protection. ;) You do it once, you never forget. Yes, I include myself in that.
  In an enclosed space, firing once, if the person has an ounce of common sense, it will send them running.
  Source:
  https://youtu.be/MKJsu7DyCic
  
  I’m not sure I understand what you’re trying to articulate here. What does sound have to do with anything? Firearms are not “noise deterrents.” And firing a warning shot is not an appropriate means of firearm safety let alone a viable option for protecting loved ones or yourself. I’d be excited to understand your point better.

Good. Laws such as this are evil, but lots of people are stupid enough to support it

307 comments