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.

  • prole@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    There are ~2 centuries of US history before the Heller decision… Don’t forget that historical context.

    • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      There was 3+ centuries of slavery in the US prior to the 14th amendment. Until the Civil Rights Acts, Jim Crow laws had been upheld for a century.

      We can also look at that historical context and see that the gov’t was often motivated by systemic racism to enact gun control.

      Historical context isn’t a panacea.

      • prole@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ok, but do you actually think that’s what Heller was about? Preventing the government from enacting racist gun control laws? Really?

        Why don’t we ask Philando Castile about how much Heller helped him (side note, no support from the NRA on that one. Huh.).

        • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          The point of Heller was saying that guns in common use couldn’t be banned (and was affirmed to apply to states as well as D.C. in McDonald v. Chicago); many of the gun control laws that prevented ownership of firearms were racist in origin, and so saying that the gov’t can’t do that thing has the effect of invalidating laws rooted in racism.

          One of the people that was originally part of the Heller case was a black community activist, and the reason she was removed from the case was lack of standing. She had not actually applied for a permit to own a firearm in the city–because she knew it was illegal–so she got kicked from the case. Heller was the only one of the original plaintiffs that tried to apply for a permit, hence the reason he’s the face. (Heller–the person–was/is a douchebag.)

          The fact that cops murder black people is a problem, sure. Do you think that they’re going to stop if black people aren’t armed? The NRA is a rotten organization; I’d recommend the Firearms Policy Coalition as being one that’s more representative of the interests of gun owners, rather than christian nationalists.

          • prole@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah. Scalia went against his claims of originalism in Heller in order to protect minority gun ownership. Fuck off.