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.

  • iyaerP@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    We have well-regulated militias.

    They’re called the National fucking Guard.

    Every Tom, Dick, and wife-beating Harry doesn’t need to walk around with enough firepower to massacre a neighborhood.

    The Constitution is a framework of government, not a goddamn suicide pact. Society and technology have changed since it was written, and we aren’t worried about needing the family musket to form a citizen militia to repel the Brits invading from Canada. And even by the end of the Revolutionary War, the myth of farmer militias gave way to the reality of a professional army.

    • Bartsbigbugbag@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The national guard would be considered an army. It is not a permanent war economy army like our Army, Navy, Marines, but it is an army nonetheless. Permanent war armies are a relatively modern product.

        • Bartsbigbugbag@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Personally, I’m much more for dismantling the permanent war economy and reducing the standing army by a few orders of magnitude. So much of our resources are stolen to keep a permanent war footing and maintain our our ~800 overseas bases. With the amount of money we spend to secure global military dominance, every single person in the entire country could have the worlds best healthcare, fully paid, no copays or anything.

          So tbh, I’d rather move back towards a militia.

          • iyaerP@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            As much as I dislike the 2nd Ammendment, American prosperity is built on those overseas bases and the security that they provide to our allied countries. The modern globalized economy, which has benefited us IMMENSELY as a country is built on the promise that in exchange for America keeping the world safe for trade, almost all major countries use the American Dollar to back their own currency, and all oil is paid for in US Dollars.

            The real problem is that we aren’t taxing the ultra-wealthy who are the ones getting all the money from the advantages of that globalized economy.

    • toasteecup@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I personally wouldn’t call that a militia. My understanding of a militia is that it’s a small group of people 20-40 max.

      The national guard is significantly larger and much much more well organized.

      That being said I agree with the rest of what you’ve said.

    • be_excellent_to_each_other@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      The Constitution is a framework of government, not a goddamn suicide pact.

      This is really a the core of the current problem, I think. We’ll never get enough votes for an amendment of any kind IMO. R would vote against an amendment from D saying the sky was blue. So now we’re at a place where turning schools into prisons due to all the security measures and similar bandaids are the only things we can do.

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

        No meaningful amendment has been passed since the 80s or 90s I think. The only one that has was on the books literally from the 1800’s and was only recently ratified.

        There’s exactly a 0% chance of getting 2/3 of the states on board with anything

        • There’s exactly a 0% chance of getting 2/3 of the states on board with anything

          Truly a sad state of affairs, and to use the language of the other poster, it does turn the constitution into a suicide pact from a certain point of view.