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.

  • TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    No, it's a right because it was deemed necessary to the security of a free state. But the individual right to bear arms was meant to be as part of a "well-regulated" militia, not simply as "everyone can have whatever weapon they want."

    Even our current very loose and I would argue inaccurate interpretation of the 2nd does not contemplate the idea that private citizens should be allowed to own tanks or heavy machine guns or SAMs without a ton of oversight.

    And of course none of this touches on the elephant in the room which is the rather obvious fact that if we take originalism seriously, then we have to concede that Madison's conception of the 2nd as being "necessary to the security of a free state," no longer applies since he was specifically concerned with large-scale civil insurrections such as Shay's Rebellion or slave uprisings, and we know very well that militias can play no role in putting down such incidents in a modern context, and to the contrary, generally only serve to exacerbate tensions and escalate violence.

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

      That's a common misreading of the 2nd amendment. You need to get a little further:

      "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

      The people, not the militias.

      This is why the Supreme Court ruled in 2008:

      https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/

      "Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia."