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.

  • jordanlund@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Not only is it a right, but given the overall dysfunction in Washington, changing it is an impossibility.

    In order to get a new Amendment off the ground, you need a 2/3rds vote in the House. 290 votes.

    They can’t get 290 votes to decide who their own leader should be.

    They can’t get 290 votes to agree to bounce George Santos.

    There’s ZERO hope they’d get 290 on ANY amendment, not just guns.

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

      In order to get a new Amendment off the ground, you need a 2/3rds vote in the House. 290 votes.

      … Or an Article V convention forced by states. I’d wager money it’s going to happen in the next 25 years.

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

        Oh, we’re WAYYY closer than that. I think we’re only 3 or 4 states away now.

        There are two problems with that though…

        1. The states calling for it are red states. They aren’t going to limit gun rights, if anything they’ll expand it, along with other stupid shit like banning abortion and gay rights, ban different classes of people from voting, and likely come up with some legal definition of “woke” and try to ban it too.

        2. While you can call for a convention with a 2/3rds majority of states (34/50), it takes a 3/4 majority to RATIFY the new constitution (38/50).

        So, to put that in comparison… in 2020 Biden won 25 states, 1 congressional district in Nebraska, and Washington D.C. Trump won 25 states and 1 congressional district in Maine.

        In order to ratify a new constitution, you need all 25 states from one side, plus 13 from the other side.

        Want to restrict abortion? All 25 Trump states + 13 Biden states. Good luck with that.

        Want to restrict guns? All 25 Biden states + 13 Trump states.

        Take a look at the map, find me 13 red states who will agree to nullify the 2nd Amendment.

        Heck, find me the guaranteed 25 Biden states.

        • Ooops@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          They will obviously never try to define “woke”. At this point it was intentionally shaped into trigger word to tell their moronic voters that something is bad without having to bring any actual arguments. An actual definition would hurt this prupose.

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

            Yup, but it takes longer to get those five than you’d think.

            Look at abortion, it took 50 years of continual effort to un-do that.

            Sonce the 2008 gun ruling, Heller, the court has only gotten MORE conservative, not less conservative.

            The next two justices to drop out will likely be Thomas and Alito as they are the two oldest at 75 and 73 respectively, so we better be damn sure we have a Democratic President in place when that happens and a Democratic Senate who won’t block nominees the way McConnell did with Merrick Garland.

            But let’s assume we get that… the next three oldest judges are Sotomayor, Roberts and Kagan. So now we’re looking at having to hold the line not just for 2 judges but for 5, or it flips back again.