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.

  • CmdrShepard@lemmy.oneEnglish
    35·
    10 months ago

    “Clearly says” just as long as you ignore the part about being in a well regulated militia.

    I suppose you support felons being allowed to own firearms again too, right?

        • Beemo Dinosaurierfuß@feddit.de
          4·
          10 months ago

          Everyone gets it but you.

          The fascists are armed to their teeth because dumb fucks following dumb rules allowed it.
          That’s the reason they are NOT armed to their teeth where I live and if they try to get armed they run a real risk of going to jail. I read about it every other week, because they keep trying and fortunately most keep failing.

          And that’s why I as a not so young, but tattooed and obviously liberal looking dude can walk around without a care in the world and I train how to choke a mf out just for my personal enjoyment and not for any real world need to.

    • jordanlund@lemmy.world
      8·
      10 months ago

      Again, the word “militia” meant something different back then, and the Supreme Court ruled in D.C. vs. Heller (2008) that Militia membership is NOT a requirement.

      And no, felons shouldn’t own weapons. If it were it up to me I’d expand it.

      If you look at the Michigan State shooter, he was arrested previously on a felony gun charge, pled out to a misdemeanor, did his time, bought more guns, and shot up the place.

      I’d argue that previous gun charges, felony OR missemeanor, should bar you from future gun ownership. You’ve already proven you can’t be trusted with a gun.

    • TonyStew@kbin.social
      5·
      10 months ago

      I certainly support the scope of that limitation being reduced to violent felony charges, if not all the way to charges related to unlawful possession/use of a firearm with how the state stretches its definitions of laws to oppress people acting against it, like considering organized protest against cop city “domestic terrorism”, bail funds for them felony money laundering, and distributing flyers containing public information to members of the public “felony intimidation”. Shit, it’s a felony to shelter yourself while homeless in Tennessee. I’m against denying any of them the right to arms for life because they pitched a tent as strongly as I’m against denying them the right to vote because of it.