Skip Navigation
News @lemmy.world
ickplant @lemmy.world

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

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.

You're viewing a single thread.

307 comments

  • 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. ;)

        • 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.

          • No, because while the Declaration is a founding document, it has no legal bearing on the United States. It was literally declaring our separation from England and serves no purpose beyond that.

            • 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.

              • First amendment, absolutely you can, you'll just get prosecuted for it same as if you shoot someone. See Trump and January 6th.

                • 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.

                  • Sure you can, that's why Trump is facing felony charges for January 6th.

                    • I'm not sure how you think I'm describing stochastic terrorism or inciting a riot other than to conclude you are being intentionally obtuse. Good day, Sir.

                      • You argued the 1st amendment freedom of speech can't end up getting people killed, I cited a current example where it very much did.

307 comments