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.

  • SeaJ@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • jordanlund@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.”