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.

  • TowardsTheFuture@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    93
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

    • BaroqueInMind@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      60
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’ve been saying this for a while here: the only way anyone can see gun control laws pass within a normal human lifetime is to have all minorities purchase and bear arms, and then go out and protest peacefully with said arms.

      The only way you can have Republicans vote against their own interests is to appeal to their racism/sexism/genderism; this is what the Black Panthers did in California and how Republicans unanimously voted in favor of gun control. All gun control laws stem from racism, and this fact needs to be leveraged.

      • MiltownClowns@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        39
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is exactly why Ronald Reagan instituted gun laws in the in California. The Black Panthers started showing up to the state capitol with guns and there were no laws against it.

      • Frog-Brawler@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        100% in agreement. Not just minorities… everyone that leans left too. I’d really like to see some funding go towards providing free firearms training courses for the trans community.

    • jordanlund@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      1 year ago

      Arms does not mean guns. It just means weapons and/or armor.

      Not according to the Supreme Court:

      Heller - 2008:

      https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/

      “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”

      McDonald - 2010 (because Heller involved Washington D.C., a 2nd ruling showed that it also applies to states as well).

      https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/742/

      “The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment extends the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms to the states, at least for traditional, lawful purposes such as self-defense.”

      Caetano - 2016 - This one is fascinating. I wish more people read it. Woman had an abusive ex, bought a taser to protect herself. MA went after her arguing “tasers didn’t exist back then, 2nd Amendment doesn’t apply.” Supremes “um actually’d” them hard.

      https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/577/14-10078/

      “The Second Amendment covers all weapons that may be defined as “bearable arms,” even if they did not exist when the Bill of Rights was drafted and are not commonly used in warfare.”

      Bruen - 2022

      https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/597/20-843/

      "The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 780 (plurality opinion). 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."

      Sooo…

      When you look at all 4 of these rulings together…

      Washington D.C. can’t ban an entire class of weapon, or require they be kept locked or disassembled. Militia membership is not required (Heller).

      That same restriction applies to the States as well (McDonald).

      The 2nd amendment applies to all bearable weapons, even those that did not exist at the time of writing (Caetano).

      States cannot apply additional restrictions on gun ownership or possession (Bruen). Citizens only need to pass a criminal check.

      • thisisawayoflife@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        The 2nd amendment applies to all bearable weapons, even those that did not exist at the time of writing (Caetano).

        That seems to conflict with Miller though? A short barrel shotgun apparently wasn’t standard military issue so it wasn’t legal for possession?

        1. The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.
        1. The “double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230,” was never used in any militia organization.
        • TonyStew@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          New precedent trumps old precedent. It’s why Brown v Board is the law of the land and Plessy v Ferguson isn’t. There (to my knowledge) hasn’t been a challenge to the NFA that’s reached the Supreme Court since that Caetano case in 2016 and the court hasn’t explicitly struck down the prior precedent of its legality, so it still stands based on the other points in the ruling. Even the current NFA-related cases against bump stock and pistol brace bans working through courts are based more on whether the ATF can consider them as NFA items rather than whether the NFA itself can be considered constitutional, so it’s likely to stick around.

        • jordanlund@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          There’s a lot of confusion over “legal”.

          A short barrelled shotgun or short barrelled rifle can be legally owned, you just have to pay a tax stamp on it. $200 was a LOT of money when Miller passed, not so much these days.

          That doesn’t even get into “Non-NFA Firearms” that are designed by the manufacturer to ride the line between legal and illegal.

          For example… If you take a Mossberg 590 shotgun and chop the stock down to a pistol grip, and don’t pay the tax, that’s a felony.

          If you take a Mossberg 590 and shorten the barrel too much without paying the tax stamp, that’s a felony.

          The 590 Shockwave is a “Non-NFA firearm” that is perfectly legal without a tax stamp even though it has a pistol grip and a short barrel.

          https://www.mossberg.com/590-shockwave-6-shot-50659.html

          It’s legal because it was made this way, not modified to be this way and it fits precisely in the overall length definition.

          If you were to remove the pistol grip and put on a shoulder stock? No tax stamp? Felony.

    • Alto@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      We can argue whether or not it’s still relevant today/how it needs to be changed, but trying to claim that the second amendment doesn’t very, very heavily imply firearms is disingenuous at best.

    • TonyStew@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Wild to see liberal interpretation go from “militia means military” to “arms doesn’t even mean guns”. At least acknowledges it as a right of the individual, which is a step in the right direction I guess. Hell of a take when even the strictest court precedent in US v Miller acknowledges it as the right of the individual to military arms, curious how this take spins the militia line.

      • BigMacHole@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        1 year ago

        Wild to see Conservative interpretation go from “well regulated doesn’t mean well regulated” to “militia means me.”

        • TonyStew@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          “Go to” as if I didn’t just cite that its most stringent supreme court interpretation from 100 years ago establishes it as a right of the individual. And I ain’t no fucking fascist.

      • jordanlund@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Miller is largely set aside for Heller in 2008, which defined the 2nd Amendment as not requiring militia membership and that the core reason for the 2nd is self defense.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The court recently said nationally legal abortion was unconstitutional. Do you agree? If not, curious how you spin that since SCOTUS decisions make right.