this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2023
403 points (98.3% liked)

News

21860 readers
3508 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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 are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SheeEttin@lemmy.world 12 points 7 months ago (3 children)

For reference, the bit in the Oregon state constitution is as follows:

Section 27. Right to bear arms; military subordinate to civil power. The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence [sic] of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.]

Pretty similar to the US constitution's second amendment. If SCOTUS was consistent, I think they'd rule in parallel to what's been established elsewhere for licensing, purchasing restrictions, etc.

[–] SeaJ@lemm.ee 9 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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 1 points 7 months 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."

[–] Natanael@slrpnk.net 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

So then people who have a history of using them for crime which is very much not self defense ought not apply?

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

If they're convicted felons, yes.

[–] Natanael@slrpnk.net 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

And yet the court said the opposite, because they don't care

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world -2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

No court has ruled that felons can be gun owners, nor should they.

[–] Natanael@slrpnk.net 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Read the article. An a law requiring background checks to block felons from purchasing guns was blocked, so they can only enforce it after the fact

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago

That's not what this law proposed. The background check blocking felons from purchasing a gun is still in place and it's a federal regulation, not a state one.

What the court blocked was a requirement that you get certified training (which doesn't exist) and a background check BEFORE you can buy a gun.

So it was a super-double background check which was wholly unmerited.

[–] MrSqueezles@lemm.ee 3 points 7 months ago

“The court finds that 10-round magazine bans are no panacea to prevent a mass shooter,” he wrote.

“People tend to believe these events are prolific and happening all the time with massive levels of death and injury,” he added. “The court finds this belief, though sensationalized by the media, is not validated by the evidence.”

Yeah, the judge sounded more interested in his own opinions than the law.