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.

  • toasteecup@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • iyaerP@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      We have well-regulated militias.

      They’re called the National fucking Guard.

      Every Tom, Dick, and wife-beating Harry doesn’t need to walk around with enough firepower to massacre a neighborhood.

      The Constitution is a framework of government, not a goddamn suicide pact. Society and technology have changed since it was written, and we aren’t worried about needing the family musket to form a citizen militia to repel the Brits invading from Canada. And even by the end of the Revolutionary War, the myth of farmer militias gave way to the reality of a professional army.

      • Bartsbigbugbag@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The national guard would be considered an army. It is not a permanent war economy army like our Army, Navy, Marines, but it is an army nonetheless. Permanent war armies are a relatively modern product.

          • Bartsbigbugbag@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Personally, I’m much more for dismantling the permanent war economy and reducing the standing army by a few orders of magnitude. So much of our resources are stolen to keep a permanent war footing and maintain our our ~800 overseas bases. With the amount of money we spend to secure global military dominance, every single person in the entire country could have the worlds best healthcare, fully paid, no copays or anything.

            So tbh, I’d rather move back towards a militia.

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

              As much as I dislike the 2nd Ammendment, American prosperity is built on those overseas bases and the security that they provide to our allied countries. The modern globalized economy, which has benefited us IMMENSELY as a country is built on the promise that in exchange for America keeping the world safe for trade, almost all major countries use the American Dollar to back their own currency, and all oil is paid for in US Dollars.

              The real problem is that we aren’t taxing the ultra-wealthy who are the ones getting all the money from the advantages of that globalized economy.

      • The Constitution is a framework of government, not a goddamn suicide pact.

        This is really a the core of the current problem, I think. We’ll never get enough votes for an amendment of any kind IMO. R would vote against an amendment from D saying the sky was blue. So now we’re at a place where turning schools into prisons due to all the security measures and similar bandaids are the only things we can do.

        • BURN@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          No meaningful amendment has been passed since the 80s or 90s I think. The only one that has was on the books literally from the 1800’s and was only recently ratified.

          There’s exactly a 0% chance of getting 2/3 of the states on board with anything

          • There’s exactly a 0% chance of getting 2/3 of the states on board with anything

            Truly a sad state of affairs, and to use the language of the other poster, it does turn the constitution into a suicide pact from a certain point of view.

      • toasteecup@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        I personally wouldn’t call that a militia. My understanding of a militia is that it’s a small group of people 20-40 max.

        The national guard is significantly larger and much much more well organized.

        That being said I agree with the rest of what you’ve said.

    • jordanlund@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not according to the Supreme Court:

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

      “Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia.”

      Here’s the confusion…

      Back when the 2nd Amendment was written, things like “well regulated” and “militia” meant different things than they do now.

      The militia was comprised of all able bodied men who could be called up at any time for defense. They were literally members of the general public.

      Well regulated meant “well armed and equipped”.

      So knowing this, the 2nd Amendment makes perfect sense.

      “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.”

      Reads as:

      “A well armed and equipped populace, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

      The key phrase here is “right of the people”. All people.

      • conquer4@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        But arguably, women are not subject to being called up due to not in the selective service. So take the guns away from females. /s

          • lewdian69@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            1 year ago

            Huh, almost like things can and should change after it was written. So fuck the 2nd amendment and anyone that defends it.

            • jordanlund@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I think it was Jefferson who argued the Constitution should have been re-written every 10 years?

              Let me see if I can find the quote…

              19 years…

              “Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19. years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right.”

              Madison was the one to kill that idea.

              But as it stands, the 2nd Amendment is the law of the land. You don’t have to like it, and there are things you can do about it:

              1. Get an Amendment started. You have to get 290 votes in the House and 67 votes in the Senate. Then get it ratified by 34 State Houses.

              2. Get it re-interpreted by the Supreme Court. You do this by electing Democratic Presidents in '24 and '28. That gives a solid Democratic White House until 2032.

              The Supreme Court leans 6-3 Conservative.
              The two oldest judges are Thomas (75) and Alito (73). If they are replaced by a Democratic President, that will turn the court back 5-4 Liberal.

              When you look at the next three oldest though: Sotomayor (69), Roberts (68), Kagan (63).

              It doesn’t do much good to flip Thomas and Alito in the next 10 years, then lose Sotomayor, Kagan, and a reliable swing vote like Roberts 5-10 years after that.

              So now you’re looking at having to have Democrats hold the White House in '24, '28, '32, '36 and possibly '40.

              • lewdian69@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                8
                ·
                1 year ago

                Doesn’t writing that all out make you want to cry? The futility of being able to prevent my child from growing up knowing they are simply a target makes me have trouble breathing. I just want it to stop.

                • jordanlund@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Helping other people understand the full ramifications of what they’re talking about actually makes me kind of proud.

                  On any hot-button issue, there’s a lot of uneducated opinion and emotion on both sides, if I can help guide even one person through to a better understanding of what it all means and what they can do, then I’m not going to cry over it.

                  If folks on the left want to do with guns what folks on the right did with abortion, it can be done… All you need is 50 years and a bunch of Supreme Court justices.

                  The thing that I find funny is that through ALL this, nobody has asked me “Well, what would YOU do if you’re so smart?”

                  Well…

                  1. I’d give up trying to ban guns. It’s money and energy wasted on an impossibility.

                  2. Examine what CAN be done knowing that banning guns is not an option.

                  For example:

                  The ATF form to buy a gun already blocks certain kinds of people from buying a gun. For example: If you’re indicted or convicted of a felony, you can’t own a gun.

                  We need an analysis of recent shootings and determine how we could change the laws to have prevented them without banning guns.

                  Look at the guy who shot up Michigan State:

                  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Michigan_State_University_shooting

                  He was previously arrested on a felony gun charge, was allowed to plead to a misdemeanor, did his time, did his probation, bought more guns and shot up the place.

                  Here’s a wild idea… maybe make it so gun offenses, misdemeanor or felony, BOTH block you from future gun ownership. Ya think? You’ve already proven you can’t be trusted with a gun.

                  Or maybe, just maybe, make it so felony gun charges can’t be pled down to a misdemeanor? Felony or nothing.

                  Each shooting exposes holes in our existing laws that can and should be fixed, but if we get hung up on “well ban guns, hurhurhur” nothing will ever get done.

                  Look at the Maine shooter:

                  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Lewiston_shootings

                  We were SO CLOSE to stopping that guy before he did anything.

                  He bought the guns before having auditory hallucinations that landed him in a mental hospital in New York for two weeks.

                  While New York has a red flag law, he wasn’t a resident of New York. It didn’t apply to him.

                  Army sent him home, banned him from handling THEIR guns, but Maine doesn’t have a red flag law which would have allowed the state to seize weapons.

                  So what could we have done? Well… how about getting every state to have a red flag law? Heck, how about a FEDERAL red flag law that could be invoked by, say, the Army, that would apply to all states a soldier might live in?

                  Again, ya think?

                  These are the common sense laws we can pass right now, and no Amendment or Supreme Court change is required to do it.

                  • lewdian69@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Thank you I guess. The dispassionate very long posts make people not want to ask you what you think because it doesn’t get our hearts racing I suppose. It also very much feels like you are defending and therefore encouraging the status quo by shooting down, pun intended, everyone’s suggestions by quoting established precedent, which we now know means nothing. So it follows that we assume you like things as they stand now whether that is true or not. Why not offer your suggestions much much earlier? No one else is waiting to be asked what they think.

                    Why are red flags laws acceptable but licensing and permitting isn’t? Why are all guns not classified as “destructive devices”. That is their intended purpose. Why isn’t a “basic gun” only single round rifles?

                    Lewiston is my home town. We don’t have 50 years.

                    The left needs to spend money. That’s what this all boils down to to me.

    • Bartsbigbugbag@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I mean, I know it’s pretty common to reinterpret things such as that through a modern lens, and I support this law that’s being overturned, but well-regulated has a very specific definition in 18th century America, and it is not what you describe. Not to mention that ARMING EVERYONE (white, at least, the rest weren’t considered people by those racist fuckheads) was an explicit goal of the US, in order to support their settler colonial project.

      • BigMacHole@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        AND in 18th century America they very specifically meant AR15 guns and similar weapons!

        • Bartsbigbugbag@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well, it specifically included the right to own cannons, and full on gunships also. So, I don’t think they would have been too concerned about a single gun, when they intended for people to own what were then the most destructive weapons available.