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.

  • neatchee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Got it. So as long as I can carry it, I should never need a permit. RPGs? Stinger missiles? Or does it have to use bullets?

    And can you give me any logical reason to make that distinction other than “those are the words in the Constitution”?

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

        Right. And I’m asking you to give me a reason for the distinction, not proof that the distinction has been made.

        I know that’s how the law has been interpreted up to this point. I’m asking you to explain why you believe it to be the correct interpretation

        • jordanlund@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          The reason for the distinction between firearms and “destructive devices” is the firearms act of 1968.

          I think the root cause for the confusion is people forget that the agency isn’t the ATF, it’s the ATFE (I guess the “E” is silent? :)

          Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.

          Explosives are their own category, it’s right there in the name.

          • neatchee@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            No, the firearms act is the thing that distinguished. It is not itself the justification for distinguishing.

            Right now all you’re saying is “because that’s the law”. I want to know why you think that’s how the ought to be

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

              What I think is totally irrelevant. I’m not a lawyer or a judge. All I can tell you is the way it is, if you don’t LIKE that, there is a path to change it, talk to your legislators about writing a new law.

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

            So you agree that armor-piercing ammunition should not be legal, correct? It shoots from a gun, but it explodes. So it is a destructive device.