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.

  • Riccosuave@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    The Supreme Court has already allowed restrictions on automatic weapons pre-1986, and there is no ability for manufacturers to sell new automatic weapons to the general public post-1986. Quit bending over backwards to try to make bad (and/or) selective legal theories make sense. They don’t and you’re a shill. Guns are an issue, and if you think they aren’t you can get fukt.

    • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      8 months ago

      SCOTUS upheld the NFA of 1934 because the appellant in the case had to go into hiding to avoid being murdered, and no one representing his case even made it to court. The court literally only heard the arguments from the gov’t. That’s an incredibly shady way to get a law past SCOTUS review.

      • Riccosuave@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        I saw you argue further down in this thread that the Supreme Court would not allow the restriction of entire “weapon classes”. Well that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny when they already disallowed the sale of any new automatic weapons to the general public post-1986.

        I hate these little semantics arguments and word games. This isn’t an issue in other developed countries for a reason. Allowing the kind of debate pervert logic you are employing only serves to muddy the waters and retards society from solving problems with clear, demonstrable solutions. Grow the fuck up, seriously.

          • Riccosuave@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            8 months ago

            I watch Forgotten Weapons every fucking day. I am intimately familiar with both the FOPA and FAWB. Both of which repeatedly and continuously stood up to constitutional challenges. The Supreme Court has repeatedly disallowed gun manufacturers from selling new “automatic weapons” (aka a class of bearable arms) to the general public. Additionally the Federal Assault Weapons Ban was repeatedly found to be constitutional, and the only reason new weapons that meet those classifications are sold today is because the FAWB had an automatic sunset clause. It could legally be reinstated by congress at any time.

            While it is true that you can get an FFL and purchase a pre-1986 automatic weapon with a transferable tax stamp, the Supreme Court has BANNED the sale of all new automatic weapons. Therefore, your previous argument doesn’t hold water. Take the L and move on.

            Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA)

            Federal Assault Weapons Ban (FAWB)

            • jordanlund@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              14
              ·
              8 months ago

              Tell me you didn’t read my link without telling me you didn’t read my link:

              “Depending on the type of FFL, and if the FFL-holder becomes an Special Occupational Taxpayer (SOT) the FFL-holder can purchase and sell machine guns, regardless of when they were made (more on this below), and they can even legally make their own machine guns or lawfully convert current firearms into full-autos. The best part about getting an automatic weapon as an FFL is that you can get it at dealer cost and fast.”

              • Riccosuave@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                11
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                8 months ago

                Tell me you don’t understand the meaning of semantics without telling me you don’t understand the meaning of semantics…

                You literally argued that the Supreme Court would strike down any need for specialty licensing for purchasing weapons in this same thread as well. Jesus fucking christ. Did you grow up underneath power lines or live in a house with leaded paint or something?

                If you need a FFL in order to purchase or trade in automatic weapons then by default those weapons are functionally banned from being sold to the general public. This is precisely why I lead with my comment about jerking off over bad legal arguments that tip-toe around the enforcement of real world solutions that can actually have a legitimate impact on gun violence. So again, from the bottom of my heart, get fukt. 😘

                • jordanlund@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  8
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  Any member of the general public can apply for an FFL and be allowed to buy a machine gun of any vintage, the only limiter is money and the usual background check.

                  Again, it’s not a hard concept to grasp. You can do it, I can do it, anyone who isn’t otherwise barred from gun ownership (felon, mental defective, drug user, etc. etc.) can do it.

                  • GoodbyeBlueMonday@startrek.website
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    8 months ago

                    If I can barge into this comment chain, the confusion seems to stem from your initial comment.

                    It’s not really “common sense” though. The Constitution clearly says you have a right to own a gun.

                    The state can’t then come through and require a permit to own a gun.

                    It’s a Right, not a “right”*.

                    Isn’t the application of an FFL the state requiring a permit to own a (certain kind of) gun? Likewise, the state telling folks they can or can’t own guns just because of a few measly felonies…isn’t that against a strict interpretation of the Second Amendment? Doesn’t that deny them a “Right”?