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.

  • jordanlund@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    The Supreme Court has stated that they do believe the 2nd Amendment is restricted, but so far, since 2008, they have struck down all challenges:

    Washington D.C. can’t ban an entire class of weapon (handguns), or require they be kept locked or disassembled. Militia membership is not required (Heller, 2008).

    That same restriction applies to the States as well (McDonald, 2010).

    The 2nd amendment applies to all bearable weapons, even those that did not exist at the time of writing (Caetano, 2016).

    States cannot apply additional restrictions on gun ownership or possession (Bruen, 2022). Citizens only need to pass a criminal check.

    • lewdian69@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Jordan, people here don’t care whether some bought and paid for judges allowed immoral interpretations of the 2nd amendment. They are arguing that those interpretations are wrong. You can quote legal scripture as much as you like. It doesn’t change the fact that those decisions were wrong and continue to be wrong and our society is worse off because of it.

      • jordanlund@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        It doesn’t matter what a bunch of people on the Internet think about the Court or the 2nd Amendment. Their opinion of it has exactly zero legal weight to it.

        They CAN change it, and I’ve outlined the ways they can.

        1. Start an Amendment. Do this by getting 290 votes in the House. Good luck with that!

        2. Get the Supreme Court to change their interpretation. That means having a Democratic President when the next 2 judges leave the court (likely Thomas - 75 and Alito - 73, two oldest on the court.)