News

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…

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

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.

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.

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.

States rights people really confused prolly.

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.

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

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

And the 21st amendment to the U.S. constitution violated the 18th amendment U.S. constitution. They should have passed this as a state constitutional amendment. Note that the judge didn't say in violated the U.S. constitution, just the state - and another one said that it didn't violate the 2nd amendment.

For reference, the bit in the Oregon state constitution is as follows:

Section 27. Right to bear arms; military subordinate to civil power. The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence [sic] of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.]

Pretty similar to the US constitution's second amendment. If SCOTUS was consistent, I think they'd rule in parallel to what's been established elsewhere for licensing, purchasing restrictions, etc.

So just pass it as a constitutional amendment

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

We've been talking locally about this law since it passed and it's clear, in the wake of other court rulings, it would not stand.

Notably:

Maryland - struck down today as well:
https://apnews.com/article/maryland-handgun-license-law-ruling-2094424b0cea9e6a2eda34f280cb1156

Or the New York law which required special permission to carry. If the Supreme Court blocked that, there's no way they'd allow a special permit to own.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/597/20-843/

"We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense.

New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered."