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.

  • Fredselfish@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    That the second amendment yet everyone ignores the WELL REGLATED part every fucking time.

    To me that reads that having back ground checks and etc fits perfectly into the second amendment.

    But the Goddamm corrupt courts keep ignoring the entirety of the constitution.

    • jordanlund@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well Regulated and militia back then both meant something entirely different from what it means today, that’s a large part of the problem.

      The founders wanted a well armed and equipped population that could be called up for defense at a moments notice.

      If you find that confusing, read the line about “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”.

      • PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I love seeing this argument because nothing makes it clearer that your views aren’t the product of any kind of critical thought, you’ve just been handed an excuse to keep doing what you want and you’ve accepted it with no further questions.

        Because even if we just let you have “well regulated means operating well, not subject to regulations”, gun-owners in America still don’t meet that definition.

        What good is a militia member who can’t demonstrate basic competence and safety with their weapon, isn’t required to meet any standard of fitness or miltary training, that potentially has a history of punching their wife?

        And of course, the founding fathers were absolutely aware of this problem.

        Washington spoke of his attempt to recruit from local militias by saying “you may, with almost equal success, attempt to raize the Dead to Life again, as the force of this country”.

        In a letter to his nephew he stated “I am wearied to death all day with a variety of perplexing circumstances, disturbed at the conduct of the militia, whose behavior and want of discipline has done great injury to the other troops, who never had officers, except in a few instances, worth the bread they eat.”

        So tell us more about how “this is what the founding fathers wanted”.

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

          Tell me how Washington was involved in writing the 2nd Amendment… Oh… Riiiight… It was Madison and he describes his reasoning in Federalist 46:

          https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed46.asp

          “a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.”

          He proposes a standing army no larger than 1/100 of the population or 1/25 able bodied men.

          Compared to the militia which is literally “everybody else”.

          More on the history of it here:

          https://www.britannica.com/topic/Second-Amendment

      • Fredselfish@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Still needed to be regulated so they saw a need to make sure that they well trained etc. That didn’t want just anyone to be armed. Today they don’t care if you’re crazy as shit and threatened to kill loads of school kids. The right wants no regulation at all.

        I swear we will get this issue fixed soon as one of these nuts start targeting the alt right and GOP.