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.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    27 months ago

    The point of Heller was saying that guns in common use couldn’t be banned (and was affirmed to apply to states as well as D.C. in McDonald v. Chicago); many of the gun control laws that prevented ownership of firearms were racist in origin, and so saying that the gov’t can’t do that thing has the effect of invalidating laws rooted in racism.

    One of the people that was originally part of the Heller case was a black community activist, and the reason she was removed from the case was lack of standing. She had not actually applied for a permit to own a firearm in the city–because she knew it was illegal–so she got kicked from the case. Heller was the only one of the original plaintiffs that tried to apply for a permit, hence the reason he’s the face. (Heller–the person–was/is a douchebag.)

    The fact that cops murder black people is a problem, sure. Do you think that they’re going to stop if black people aren’t armed? The NRA is a rotten organization; I’d recommend the Firearms Policy Coalition as being one that’s more representative of the interests of gun owners, rather than christian nationalists.

    • prole
      link
      English
      17 months ago

      Yeah. Scalia went against his claims of originalism in Heller in order to protect minority gun ownership. Fuck off.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        07 months ago

        He didn’t do it for that purpose, but that’s still the legal effect.

        I don’t get it why so many libs–and I mean that in the worst possible way–seem to think that having cops be the only people that can legally be armed is going to have good outcomes. Defund the police because ACAB but also only cops should have guns because they’re totally trustworthy with lethal ordnance. Meanwhile, those of us that have lived outside of upper-middle class urban areas know that cops can’t arrive quickly in an emergency, or simply don’t.

        • prole
          link
          English
          0
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          seem to think that having cops be the only people that can legally be armed

          Did I say that?

          You fucking idiots act like the US is the only country that exists in the world. Why don’t you look at gun violence/crime in countries where even the cops don’t have guns.

          The US is way too far gone to ever go to something like that. Half of the country has made firearms a defining feature of their personality. They would literally rather die (and probably take their entire family with them).

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            07 months ago

            Why don’t you look at gun violence/crime in countries where even the cops don’t have guns.

            First: I’ve already addressed that. There are social factors that are driving the violence. Other countries with high rates of individual gun ownership don’t see the rates of violence in general, or gun violence in particular, because they don’t have the unaddressed social problems that the US has. Fix the cause, and you fix the violence.

            Second: the tools of violence are irrelevant. Violence is the problem, not the tools used. Remove the tools, and the violence continues unabated with different means.