Voter-approved Oregon gun control law violates the state constitution, judge rules - eviltoast

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.

  • alienanimals@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    55
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    1 year ago

    Fixed the headline - Judge rules that Americans need more mass shootings before anything changes.

  • Bitswap@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    This will be overturned. This judge is known for making politically motivated decisions. There is a reason this was filed specifically in Harney County where this yahoo presides.

    Guaranteed this is not the last time this will be in the news.

        • Sanyanov@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I believe people somehow did it through federation with Mastodon.

          Don’t remember in details. I’m not aware for Lemmy having such bots, but ActivityPub in general should have some.

  • Femcowboy@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Democracy is when the majority of people vote for a law but because rich people from 100+ years ago say otherwise it doesn’t get enacted.

  • masquenox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    C’mon, this is easy… all you need is a large gathering of BLM people or antifa packing ARs and boom - this law will mysteriously pass before the media frenzy has had a chance to get it’s shoes on.

    • lutillian@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nah, the result of that would be the national guard getting called and an oppressive use of force to put everyone back in their places. The media would either briefly display it in the news ticker mentioning that our national heros quelled a local terrorist attack or just say nothing about it.

      • masquenox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        the result of that would be the national guard

        Do you know why they never called the national guard on the Black Panthers? Or why the pig never dared to confront them directly?

        • PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          This is nothing more then a marketing campaign by the gun lobby to sell bullshit hero fantasies to left wing people too.

          “The pig” killed 34 members of the Black Panther Party, including outright assassinations.

          When the full details of the FBI involvment was revealed, the director of the agency issued a public apology for “wrongful use of power” and exactly 0 members of the pro-gun community used their guns to overthrow a government running projects like COINTELPRO.

          The BPP being armed didn’t just fail to deliver on everything you’re promising, it provided all the justification the state needed to abuse and murder them – an excuse police still use to this day.

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

            marketing campaign by the gun lobby to sell bullshit

            The left doesn’t need “marketing” to appreciate the value of modern-day weaponry - all we need for that is a proper understanding of the right and their liberal allies.

            “Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary” - the big kahuna himself, Karl Marx.

            I’m no Marxist myself, but damn - when the guy was right he was really right.

            “The pig”

            It’s pig. Not “pig”.

            including outright assassinations.

            I wonder why they couldn’t just lynch Fred Hampton on the sidewalk like they did with George Floyd - it’s a complete mystery to me.

            it provided all the justification the state needed to abuse and murder them

            Riiiight… because the fascists have always required an excuse to perpetrate mass-murder on people they consider “other,” correct?

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

              The left doesn’t need “marketing” to appreciate the value of modern-day weaponry - all we need for that is a proper understanding of the right and their liberal allies.

              The gun laws you’re advocating armed this shithead and thousands of others like him.

              He deliberately targeted minorities and legal gun owners did nothing to prevent it and will do nothing to prevent it happening again, because the only solutions they support are the ones that just happen to be most profitable to the gun lobby.

              I wonder why they couldn’t just lynch Fred Hampton on the sidewalk like they did with George Floyd - it’s a complete mystery to me.

              Your guns saved neither of those people but sure, tell us how George Floyd would have gone done in your little gun utopia.

              Should George have shot the cops? He’d still be dead, only now the people who wanted to kill him would be walking free.

              Should a passerby have shot the cops? They’d be dead instead of (or as well as) George and once again, the cops would be walking free, probably with an even bigger budget.

              Your bullshit “lets just shoot our problems” doesn’t help anybody except the far-right and the gun lobby.

              You’ve done fuck all to create actual reforms, you just advocate other people sacrifice their lives.

              Riiiight… because the fascists have always required an excuse to perpetrate mass-murder on people they consider “other,” correct?

              If you’re so convinced you have the solution to systemic violence and oppression, go out and shoot the county better. We’re all waiting for you to make all this violence worth it, like you promise you will and have been promising you will for 20 years.

              Until then, you’re only aiding scumbags and can stick your guns down your piss hole.

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

                The gun laws you’re advocating armed this shithead and thousands of others like him.

                No, Clyde… a fundamentally white supremacist state brainwashed him and millions of others like him - and your only solution to all this is to disarm the people most likely to be targeted by these fascists?

                I guess it’s true what they say… the only thing fascism really needs to flourish is a bunch of liberals to furrow the ground for them.

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

                  your only solution to all this is to disarm the people most likely to be targeted by these fascists?

                  Do you have a head injury? My solution is to not arm the white supremacists, even if it inconveniences gun owners.

                  Meanwhile, your solution is to enthusiastically arm white supremacists over and over again and when they gun down as many, blame the victims for not carrying a gun with them at all times.

                  How is anyone supposed to believe you’re not a white supremacist or simp to the gun lobby?

                  I guess it’s true what they say… the only thing fascism really needs to flourish is a bunch of liberals to furrow the ground for them.

                  They seem to be flourishing well enough with their AR-15s and your no-strings-attached support.

                  If you have the solution, why isn’t it solved? Go out and shoot somebody and fix it.

            • SCB@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Lmao you’d lose any war you fought.

              The idea that you can own a gun and be safe from state violence has never once paid off for anyone who buys into it.

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

                be safe from state violence

                Appeasing the status quo is only an option for the privileged, Clyde.

                Do tell… will the pigs be siccing their Klan and neo-nazi proxies onto you first thing or won’t they?

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

                  How many police and Nazis have you shot? Would you like to compare it to how many people neo-nazis and racist police have shot?

    • sploosh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      We already have heavily armed BLM and Antifa folks. Oregon contains multitudes.

      The law in question was doomed to fail. I’m halfway sure it was put on the ballot just to encourage pro gun people to vote.

    • freeindv@monyet.cc
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Except even during the most destructive and violent of BLM riots had armed participants, the pro civil rights people continued to stand by gun rights. You’ve been proven wrong and too ignorant to realize it, or too dishonest to admit it.

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

        destructive and violent of BLM riots

        Oh, it was BLM doing the violence? It wasn’t the pigs and their neo-nazi proxies?

        pro civil rights people

        Oh, it’s the white supremacists that are “pro-civil rights”, is it?

        I think you’ve just unmasked yourself, fashboi.

  • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Breaking: one unelected person with an agenda overrules entire state, imposes his personal interpretation of the law

  • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    People from around the developed world looking at America…shaking my head

    • ickplant@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Trust me, Americans who understand what’s going on are shaking their heads too. And furiously voting and getting ready to vote. But are there enough of them?

      • skuzz@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Like many other systemic problems, our voting isn’t working. Case in point, your article. As for how we can actually effect meaningful change? No idea. It’s frustrating.

        • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s why you have to keep voting.

          Change doesn’t come as a result of one victory, it’s a ungratifying grinding process that takes being able to consistently build on previous achievements.

          That’s literally how the right gets their way so often, one step or a hundred, doesn’t matter as long as the man on the ticket is even tangentially going in the direction they want.

          • whofearsthenight@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            This is what is so, so frustrating. I’ve watched this cycle my entire life, and though I wouldn’t really be politically aware until about 99-2000 as Clinton left office, it’s the same cycle repeated and has been since at least Reagan. Republicans come in, cut taxes for the rich, start wars, and slowly chip away at our basic liberties. Democrats come in, start in the middle of a war, an economic recession, now a pandemic, etc, and have to clean it up. And then everyone gets pissed off because the dems can’t clean it up fast enough and like it’s fucking groundhog day, the country forgets and decides what’s going to fix it is changing back to the side the caused the fucking problem.

            The most mouth breather dumb shit take I hear especially on Lemmy is that “dems just don’t inspire enough” so people are going to sit it out or vote third party (which means, help Republicans win.) Well, I guess the absolute dumbest take is voting Republican. Doing the boring ass work and making tiny in roads is not inspiring, but it’s how you get to watershed moments. Republicans know this, they’ve been working for 50 years to overturn Roe, to further the wealth divide, to lock down your civil liberties.

          • whofearsthenight@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Uh, they are wrong. Think of how much absolute bullshit we would have avoided if turnout in 2016 wasn’t so low for Hilary, and people didn’t waste their vote on a deliberate spoiler candidate with Jill Stein. You can probably put some numbers on it - how many would not be dead if a rational leader had been overseeing the pandemic? Republicans wouldn’t have the Supreme Court, Roe wouldn’t have been over turned, we wouldn’t have the SC legislating from the bench in regards to EPA/climate change, we could have actual gun legislation, and so much more. The list goes on and on.

            Even in 2016, before we knew the depths of how far Trump would sink, we knew he was on tape advising how to commit sexual assault, had been accused of sexual assault by over 20 women, we knew he was racist and demonstrably so, we knew he was a conman that hadn’t ever really accomplished anything (unless a record for companies bankruptcies is something?)

            But hey, Hilary wasn’t “inspiring.”

            There is a reason there is so much effort to prevent people from voting in this country. There was a deliberate effort in 2016 to convince you that your vote didn’t matter, Hilary had it locked up, etc. There is a deliberate effort in basically every red state to gerrymander so progressives can’t get ahead.

            So anyway, these comments are doing their work for them. Our government has many problems, but the general thing is that it moves slow. If you want to see positive change, vote, and then have an attention span and keep voting.

          • PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Don’t worry, all the pro-gun people promised that if the government starts ignoring the will of the people they’ll shoot them with their cool guns.

  • Pratai@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    We can’t have reduced gun crimes in America. It would send the wrong message to the rest of the world that we’re reasonable and give a shit about our own people.

  • AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    If they had left out the magazine restriction then this probably would have been a slam dunk bill.

  • lemmefixdat4u@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Can you imagine the response if Congress passed a law that said you must complete “voter training” prior to each election before being allowed to vote? Because we all know that there are lots of voters who know absolutely nothing about the people and issues they are voting on, simply voting as their party wishes. And what if the voter had to pay for that training? Do we set aside the Bill of Rights for the overall good of the country?

    I get that there is a big problem with shootings. But these gun control measures do nothing other than make politicians points with their constituents. Live in a state that bans assault weapons and >10 round magazines? Go to a state without those restrictions and buy what you want - if you’re going to commit a crime, why care that you are breaking the law by doing so? Anyone with a little mechanical skill, a hobby lathe, and a 3D printer can manufacture a fully automatic gun. And imagine the carnage if an unbalanced person waited for a windy day, stole a gasoline tanker, fitted it with an electric pump and nozzles, then started a huge wildfire just upwind of a major city. Take away guns and the crazies will turn to other means of carrying our their killing spree.

    Want a real solution? That’s going to cost you. Universal mental health care, free education and job training, and programs to find “loners”, who are involved in most mass shootings, then evaluate their risk to the public and themselves.

    • ickplant@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Respectfully, reality doesn’t agree with your opinion. In states where elected officials have taken action to pass gun safety laws, fewer people die by gun violence. These laws absolutely work.

      Anyone with a little mechanical skill, a hobby lathe, and a 3D printer can manufacture a fully automatic gun

      Yeah, sounds so simple. Totally not more effort than walking into a store and buying one.

      Universal mental health care, free education and job training

      Totally agree there - and there is no reason we can’t have that AND reasonable gun laws. Never understood the false dichotomy.

      programs to find “loners”, who are involved in most mass shootings

      I’m glad you put “loners” in quotations because these people didn’t get radicalized alone. Top law enforcement officials say the biggest domestic terror threat comes from white supremacists. These are not “lone wolves.” They have been brainwashed by extreme right-wingers to hate anyone who is different.

      • lemmefixdat4u@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Thanks for the well-worded reply. My concern is that we are preventing citizens from exercising a right. Restricting guns seems like the easy thing to do - if you’re not a gun rights supporter. I live in a place where it can take law enforcement a while to reach me. Until then, I’m on my own. Being limited to a 10-round magazine and going up against someone with a 100-round rotary magazine could leave me dead. I hope it never happens, but it could. There are illegal pot farms up here, and being suspected of turning one in can get ugly quick.

        We have yet to exhaust other less intrusive ways to curtail gun violence. The fact that all psychological disqualifying conditions are not used to determine gun purchases is appalling to me. Politicians are more concerned that a person might avoid seeking treatment to hide their condition. And how can some who have threatened or committed unwarranted violence on others still buy a firearm? These issues need to be addressed before the government infringes on everyone’s right. Instead of legislating to address the least common denominator, stop those who’ve proven they lack good judgement from obtaining a weapon in the first place.

  • cybervseas@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I mean if a common sense law like that violates the state constitution, it does seems like the problem is in the constitution or how it’s interpreted, not the law…

    • jordanlund@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      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”*.

      • toasteecup@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        If you’re gonna quote the right, then quote all of it, it’s for the purpose of a militia.

        Last I checked none of the UA citizens are in one because we have a very well organized military instead which was the immediate down fall of what were typically loosely organized groups.

        • Bartsbigbugbag@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I mean, I know it’s pretty common to reinterpret things such as that through a modern lens, and I support this law that’s being overturned, but well-regulated has a very specific definition in 18th century America, and it is not what you describe. Not to mention that ARMING EVERYONE (white, at least, the rest weren’t considered people by those racist fuckheads) was an explicit goal of the US, in order to support their settler colonial project.

          • BigMacHole@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            AND in 18th century America they very specifically meant AR15 guns and similar weapons!

      • BigMacHole@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Exactly! But there is a LOT of wiggle room with “anyone who engages in insurrection can’t hold public office” and “you have the freedom to not practice anyone else’s religion!”

  • freeindv@monyet.cc
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    Good. Laws such as this are evil, but lots of people are stupid enough to support it