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.

You're viewing a single thread.

307 comments

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.
  
  911 funding is a convoluted mess between municipalities and states that's separate from "funding for law enforcement" and HAS been woefully under budgeted, especially as systems need upgrading.
  Calling cops to an overdose instead of EMS is part of the fucking problem.
  
  Thank you for the vulgarities to express your point. I can assure you I am better versed in the world of first responders. My point is that the city in which I live is so understaffed on police that there was nobody to respond to provide cover for Fire and EMS to conduct their duties for the overdosing individual.
- 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.
  
  Interesting.
  Couldn't the police arrest you as soon as you leave the lot?
  
  If you drive the car onto public roads you would then be breaking the law and most likely you would have trouble applying for plates for the car. Traffic enforcement here isn't exactly on top of anything. If you wanted the car delivered to your home or any private property it would be perfectly legal. Based on the number of unplated vehicles and frequency of uninsured motorist incidents here, I'd be a bit shocked if any enforcement occurred.
  
  Thanks for your time and info.
  Around here, all dealerships require you show them a drivers licence and proof of insurance before you can drive off.
  You could buy it and have it delivered without one though.
  That makes more sense to me than expecting traffic cops to even find let alone enforce after the fact.
  TBH, I never thought much about it and kinda assumed it was universal.
  
  Nothing says that the owner/buyer of a car has to be the one who drives it. You could buy a car and have someone else drive you around. Or just buy one for someone else to use—for example a parent who doesn't drive could buy a car for their child who has a license. Or vice-versa. Either way there is no reason for the buyer to need a license.
- 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!
  
  That's a lot of words to say, "I have no way to back up my claims." "Go research for yourself" is the last bastion of those whose arguments fail to stand up to scrutiny. You have a lot to say, and so far in this thread the only single piece of evidence you've provided is a Youtube video. The AR's history is that it's a weapon of war.
  I get the impression you have a lot of personal experience with guns, and you've probably been exposed to training in order to increase your comfort level, but "go research for yourself, and your research will obviously make you agree with me" doesn't change the reality that you haven't actually given any evidence for the stats you spouted. Save the condescension for your family and neighbors.
  If you want your position to be taken seriously, back it up. Otherwise, everyone will continue to care nothing whatever about what you say.
  That's all.
  
  Pot calling the kettle black. Unlike you, I have read the bill. I knew what I voted for when I chose not to support Measure 114. You asked me to hand you supporting evidence for my viewpoints on a silver platter, I don’t do that for keyboard warriors such as yourself. If you’d like to show your interested in a legitimate discussion by showing some sort of fact from your way of looking at it I’m happy to look at it. Your sarcastic claim that I “obviously want you to agree with me” is grotesquely mistaken and again keyboard warrior click bait. Good luck with your journey, you obviously have nothing further to offer.
- 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.
  
  I’d be happy to hear your point of view and refrain from attacks on your intelligence
  Given that you pre-emptively attacked it, I doubt that very much. I'll save that conversation for someone else.
  Good Day, Sir or Madam.
- "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.
  
  The sound of a gun will send people running even if you don't shoot them. Watch the video linked at the bottom.
  
  You should never blindly fire a firearm. That’s the first rule of gun safety. I’m not watching a video promoting unsafe firearm practices. You’re part of the problem if you’re promoting blind firing a gun inside your house or anywhere. Buy some firecrackers and pull a Home Alone if that’s your desired effect, not a firearm.
  
  https://youtu.be/LGKkSZSv1rA?si=8goNQFuJN99ZiXtJ
  
  It wasn't a blind fire, you'd know that if you watched the video. ;)
  3 guys kick down a door and break into a house.
  They wander into a bedroom where the homeowner is.
  Homeowner fires multiple shots.
  The three dudes shit themselves and flee in a panic.
  So, again, the number of shots needed to bring someone down isn't necessarily the same as the number of shots needed to end an encounter, and ending the encounter is the most important part. You don't have to drop someone, all you have to do is convince them to re-think their life choices.
  
  Sooooo a firearm was a tool used to defend their home. Because the homeowner knew their target. One of four basic firearm safety rules. Huh.
  Their intention was not to “create sound.” Aren’t you proving my point? A well armed homeowner successfully defended their home? Nobody should EVER use the sounds of gunshots to deter anybody from any action. It’s irresponsible and an unsafe firearm ownership practice. Period.
  It’s people like you who jeopardize the Second Amendment Rights of responsible firearm owners all across this country.
  
  No, what I'm saying is you don't need to shoot someone 10 times to drop them when any sane person will start to flee after the first shot.
  Focusing on "number of shots needed to drop a target" is a bogus metric. "Number of shots needed to end an encounter" is all you need.
  By the math above, homeowner would have needed 30+ shots to stop 3 intruders. They didn't. Not even close to that. Because the three intruders fled when met with force.
  
  Great. You have one YouTube video to base an entire argument off of. Look of body cam footage of OIS, look up security camera footage of self defense shootings, learn something about the matter before you watch one clip on the internet before you come on here and advocate for lethal noisemakers. No duh people run from gun fire. There are also countless court cases and documented investigations where a single person continued to assault an individual after taking 40+ rounds to vital organs throughout their bodies.
  Can you predict the future? Do you know what kind of person is going to break into your home? Is that person of a sound mind? Is that person high on some substance that takes them so far out of reality and their body it’s as if they have super human strength? The answer is you don’t know. Limiting these tools for responsible citizens endangers their lives. Again, I am for gun control. But responsible gun control that is thought out and not implemented out of fear mongering and panic voting.
  
  There are more, many, many more. Again, you don't have to kill someone to stop an attack.
  Why? People are scared of gunfire, it's really that simple.
  https://youtu.be/m9GWtoyNEkY
  https://youtu.be/-N1A9xT9cCA
  https://youtu.be/6btxi_HYUZ4
  https://youtu.be/NcbUNQmgQ40

307 comments