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.
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…
Nothing that’s controversial can reasonably be called common sense.
No. Common sense is controversial because of the sheer volume of stupid people that refuse it. It isn’t just gun control. It’s everything.
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”*.
So, the first amendment gives you the right to free speech, and yet inciting a riot or other dangerous forms of speech are still not protected.
Arms does not mean guns. It just means weapons and/or armor. Dangerous things can and should be protected. Not all weapons need be for the public, as I’m pretty sure no one would be okay with any civilian having their own nuke stockpile. I don’t see why we can’t dial it back a bit more to try and reduce access to guns when we’ve continually seen how much destruction they can cause.
I’ve been saying this for a while here: the only way anyone can see gun control laws pass within a normal human lifetime is to have all minorities purchase and bear arms, and then go out and protest peacefully with said arms.
The only way you can have Republicans vote against their own interests is to appeal to their racism/sexism/genderism; this is what the Black Panthers did in California and how Republicans unanimously voted in favor of gun control. All gun control laws stem from racism, and this fact needs to be leveraged.
This is exactly why Ronald Reagan instituted gun laws in the in California. The Black Panthers started showing up to the state capitol with guns and there were no laws against it.
These days the cops would just show up and kill them all because they felt “threatened.”
100% in agreement. Not just minorities… everyone that leans left too. I’d really like to see some funding go towards providing free firearms training courses for the trans community.
We can argue whether or not it’s still relevant today/how it needs to be changed, but trying to claim that the second amendment doesn’t very, very heavily imply firearms is disingenuous at best.
That is common sense.
Arms does not mean guns. It just means weapons and/or armor.
Not according to the Supreme Court:
Heller - 2008:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/
“The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”
McDonald - 2010 (because Heller involved Washington D.C., a 2nd ruling showed that it also applies to states as well).
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/742/
“The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment extends the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms to the states, at least for traditional, lawful purposes such as self-defense.”
Caetano - 2016 - This one is fascinating. I wish more people read it. Woman had an abusive ex, bought a taser to protect herself. MA went after her arguing “tasers didn’t exist back then, 2nd Amendment doesn’t apply.” Supremes “um actually’d” them hard.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/577/14-10078/
“The Second Amendment covers all weapons that may be defined as “bearable arms,” even if they did not exist when the Bill of Rights was drafted and are not commonly used in warfare.”
Bruen - 2022
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/597/20-843/
"The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 780 (plurality opinion). 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."
Sooo…
When you look at all 4 of these rulings together…
Washington D.C. can’t ban an entire class of weapon, or require they be kept locked or disassembled. Militia membership is not required (Heller).
That same restriction applies to the States as well (McDonald).
The 2nd amendment applies to all bearable weapons, even those that did not exist at the time of writing (Caetano).
States cannot apply additional restrictions on gun ownership or possession (Bruen). Citizens only need to pass a criminal check.
The 2nd amendment applies to all bearable weapons, even those that did not exist at the time of writing (Caetano).
That seems to conflict with Miller though? A short barrel shotgun apparently wasn’t standard military issue so it wasn’t legal for possession?
- The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.
- The “double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230,” was never used in any militia organization.
New precedent trumps old precedent. It’s why Brown v Board is the law of the land and Plessy v Ferguson isn’t. There (to my knowledge) hasn’t been a challenge to the NFA that’s reached the Supreme Court since that Caetano case in 2016 and the court hasn’t explicitly struck down the prior precedent of its legality, so it still stands based on the other points in the ruling. Even the current NFA-related cases against bump stock and pistol brace bans working through courts are based more on whether the ATF can consider them as NFA items rather than whether the NFA itself can be considered constitutional, so it’s likely to stick around.
There’s a lot of confusion over “legal”.
A short barrelled shotgun or short barrelled rifle can be legally owned, you just have to pay a tax stamp on it. $200 was a LOT of money when Miller passed, not so much these days.
That doesn’t even get into “Non-NFA Firearms” that are designed by the manufacturer to ride the line between legal and illegal.
For example… If you take a Mossberg 590 shotgun and chop the stock down to a pistol grip, and don’t pay the tax, that’s a felony.
If you take a Mossberg 590 and shorten the barrel too much without paying the tax stamp, that’s a felony.
The 590 Shockwave is a “Non-NFA firearm” that is perfectly legal without a tax stamp even though it has a pistol grip and a short barrel.
https://www.mossberg.com/590-shockwave-6-shot-50659.html
It’s legal because it was made this way, not modified to be this way and it fits precisely in the overall length definition.
If you were to remove the pistol grip and put on a shoulder stock? No tax stamp? Felony.
Wild to see liberal interpretation go from “militia means military” to “arms doesn’t even mean guns”. At least acknowledges it as a right of the individual, which is a step in the right direction I guess. Hell of a take when even the strictest court precedent in US v Miller acknowledges it as the right of the individual to military arms, curious how this take spins the militia line.
Wild to see Conservative interpretation go from “well regulated doesn’t mean well regulated” to “militia means me.”
“Go to” as if I didn’t just cite that its most stringent supreme court interpretation from 100 years ago establishes it as a right of the individual. And I ain’t no fucking fascist.
Miller is largely set aside for Heller in 2008, which defined the 2nd Amendment as not requiring militia membership and that the core reason for the 2nd is self defense.
The court recently said nationally legal abortion was unconstitutional. Do you agree? If not, curious how you spin that since SCOTUS decisions make right.
The Supreme Court has already allowed restrictions on automatic weapons pre-1986, and there is no ability for manufacturers to sell new automatic weapons to the general public post-1986. Quit bending over backwards to try to make bad (and/or) selective legal theories make sense. They don’t and you’re a shill. Guns are an issue, and if you think they aren’t you can get fukt.
SCOTUS upheld the NFA of 1934 because the appellant in the case had to go into hiding to avoid being murdered, and no one representing his case even made it to court. The court literally only heard the arguments from the gov’t. That’s an incredibly shady way to get a law past SCOTUS review.
The general public can buy fully automatic weapons, you just have to fill out the proper ATF forms and be prepared to pay a really, really large sum of money. Tens of thousands of dollars.
I saw you argue further down in this thread that the Supreme Court would not allow the restriction of entire “weapon classes”. Well that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny when they already disallowed the sale of any new automatic weapons to the general public post-1986.
I hate these little semantics arguments and word games. This isn’t an issue in other developed countries for a reason. Allowing the kind of debate pervert logic you are employing only serves to muddy the waters and retards society from solving problems with clear, demonstrable solutions. Grow the fuck up, seriously.
They didn’t though. The general public can absolutely buy a fully automatic weapon, you just have to fill out the proper ATF forms and pay the INCREDIBLY high taxes on it. Tens of thousands of dollars.
I watch Forgotten Weapons every fucking day. I am intimately familiar with both the FOPA and FAWB. Both of which repeatedly and continuously stood up to constitutional challenges. The Supreme Court has repeatedly disallowed gun manufacturers from selling new “automatic weapons” (aka a class of bearable arms) to the general public. Additionally the Federal Assault Weapons Ban was repeatedly found to be constitutional, and the only reason new weapons that meet those classifications are sold today is because the FAWB had an automatic sunset clause. It could legally be reinstated by congress at any time.
While it is true that you can get an FFL and purchase a pre-1986 automatic weapon with a transferable tax stamp, the Supreme Court has BANNED the sale of all new automatic weapons. Therefore, your previous argument doesn’t hold water. Take the L and move on.
Tell me you didn’t read my link without telling me you didn’t read my link:
“Depending on the type of FFL, and if the FFL-holder becomes an Special Occupational Taxpayer (SOT) the FFL-holder can purchase and sell machine guns, regardless of when they were made (more on this below), and they can even legally make their own machine guns or lawfully convert current firearms into full-autos. The best part about getting an automatic weapon as an FFL is that you can get it at dealer cost and fast.”
“Clearly says” just as long as you ignore the part about being in a well regulated militia.
I suppose you support felons being allowed to own firearms again too, right?
I certainly support the scope of that limitation being reduced to violent felony charges, if not all the way to charges related to unlawful possession/use of a firearm with how the state stretches its definitions of laws to oppress people acting against it, like considering organized protest against cop city “domestic terrorism”, bail funds for them felony money laundering, and distributing flyers containing public information to members of the public “felony intimidation”. Shit, it’s a felony to shelter yourself while homeless in Tennessee. I’m against denying any of them the right to arms for life because they pitched a tent as strongly as I’m against denying them the right to vote because of it.
As long as it’s a well-regulated militia of felons, that’s fine. /s
Ah yes, the Proud Boys…
In a system where two groups of people do drugs, but only one gets a criminal record for it because of ethnicity, yes.
Disarming the poor, taking rights away because someone talked to a psychiatrist, and eliminating the one equalizer in society isn’t a good idea.
There’s a reason Mao said political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. Jacked Nazis can’t lose their power to kill from this, but a tiny femme will be at an uneven playing field when gun control says her suicide attempt makes her ineligible for a permit, and a felon for getting caught owning a gun. Guess she’ll have to wrestle the gymrat skinhead to maintain her rights because of your progressive activism.
“Only cops should have guns” —liberals, wearing their BLM pin.
deleted by creator
Everyone gets it but you.
The fascists are armed to their teeth because dumb fucks following dumb rules allowed it.
That’s the reason they are NOT armed to their teeth where I live and if they try to get armed they run a real risk of going to jail. I read about it every other week, because they keep trying and fortunately most keep failing.And that’s why I as a not so young, but tattooed and obviously liberal looking dude can walk around without a care in the world and I train how to choke a mf out just for my personal enjoyment and not for any real world need to.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I’ll never understand this bizarre fucking response. “Oh it’s so hard to fix this we should just all lie down and die instead”. It’s everywhere but guns and climate change seem to draw it out the most.
Again, the word “militia” meant something different back then, and the Supreme Court ruled in D.C. vs. Heller (2008) that Militia membership is NOT a requirement.
And no, felons shouldn’t own weapons. If it were it up to me I’d expand it.
If you look at the Michigan State shooter, he was arrested previously on a felony gun charge, pled out to a misdemeanor, did his time, bought more guns, and shot up the place.
I’d argue that previous gun charges, felony OR missemeanor, should bar you from future gun ownership. You’ve already proven you can’t be trusted with a gun.
Are you interested in understanding the historical context and meaning of the second amendment?
Or do you just want to argue against it?
This is a serious question.
There are ~2 centuries of US history before the Heller decision… Don’t forget that historical context.
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.
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.).
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.
Not OP but both.
I am interested in the historical context, but I doubt it will change my opinion that it is fucking stupid to have something like that as part of a constitution.
I would suggest reading, “Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America” by Adam Winkler (ISBN 0393345831). The author has extensive end notes so you can check his sources. (There are also a number of books out there about the use of arms in the struggle for civil rights, but that’s not directly relevant.)
This is greatly condensed. First, under English common law at the time, it was understood that the right to own arms for self defense was an individual right. The English king had previously disarmed groups (Catholics, I think? I’m not sure off the top of me head), and though it had taken a while, English courts had ruled that it was not legal for the gov’t to seize arms from the people. In the Americas, people were just armed. Most people had guns (certain anti-gun researchers have falsely claimed otherwise, but their claims simply don’t stand up), although “people” here is defined as white, male landowners, since women didn’t really have rights, and black people were largely enslaved. The militias of the time were *ALL able-bodied men. The people were legally obligated to provide their own weapons–which meant weapons fit for military service–and to both practice on their own, and muster with the rest of the militia when they were called to do so. The colonists were largely in charge of defending themselves, because it was expensive and slow to send the British army and navy over when colonists had skirmishes with the French or Native Americans. (I’m not making a values judgement on the colonists being colonizers and taking Native American land; just saying that’s the context.) The first real battle of the American Revolution occurred at a period when England was trying to exert more control over the colonies, and decided to seize the weapons that the the colonists had been amassing. The Battle of Lexington and Concord was specifically that; an attempt to seize weapons from the militias.
The people that wrote the constitution intended for the people to be armed, and for the people to be armed with military weapons. Self defense was clearly a consideration, but it wasn’t the only consideration. When you read the things that the leaders of the revolution and authors of the constitution wrote regarding arms, it’s clear that they never intended it to be a right of the government; after all, the constitution gave the government the right to raise an army, so why would you need to have an amendment that also gives the gov’t the right to have arms?
In regards to the violence - I’d argue that guns are not the problem, but are only tools. Switzerland and Finland both have heavily armed populations, but have very, very low murder rates, and very low rates of violent crime in general. The US combines a large number of guns with uniquely bad social and economic conditions; if we effectively address the social and economic conditions, then the issues with violent crime will largely disappear on their own, without the removing the civil rights.
Switzerland and Finland both have heavily armed populations
How do their laws around firearms and gun control compare? Is it apples to apples?
It is not, no. There are no countries where it’s apples-to-apples. Each country is going to have differing gun laws and regulations, so there’s no way to make an absolutely perfect comparison.
Having spoken to Finnish gun enthusiasts, you need to go to a range and shoot a certain number of times in a year in order to get permits to buy, but there are a limited number of ranges, and the slots fill up very quickly. But once you have permits, things like silencers are available without issue. It’s not significantly harder to get tactical/assault-style rifles than it is to get pistols. Background checks don’t seem to be any more significant than the checks that you have to go through in the US. Finns have a strong culture of hunting, as well as shooting Russians, so there’s quite a few gun owners in Finland.
Switzerland has conscription, so most people end up having to serve a year or so in the military, and then have the option of keeping their service rifle. Each canton seems to do their own permitting, but in general it’s not terribly difficult to get permits. Again, it’s not significantly more onerous to get a permit than it is to pass a background check in the US. The Swiss also have a strong culture of competitive shooting. Switzerland in general is pretty monocultural; it’s not easy to emigrate to Switzerland.
Both countries also have very strong social safety nets, and are significantly flatter economically; there isn’t the same kind of economic gulf between the poor and the wealthy in either country that we see in the US. Both countries have a judicial system that’s geared towards reform rather than punishment. Both countries have some form of socialized medicine, so that families aren’t going bankrupt because mom has breast cancer, or dad had a car accident. There’s far, far less religious extremism in both countries (religious extremism really drives the moralistic attitudes in the US towards crime and poverty).
Conversely, we can look at the UK and Australia to see what happens when you remove firearms, but don’t correct social conditions. (England, in particular, has been cutting all social programs.) Violent crime rates–defined as robbery, murder, assault/battery, and forcible rape–are roughly similar in the UK and Australia to the US, although the US has a far higher murder rate overall. Violent crime in the US is more lethal, but the lack of guns doesn’t have any effect on the overall violent crime rates. Rates of forcible rape in Australia are, IIRC, rather significantly higher than they are in the US. (A caveat is that you can never do a perfect comparison in crimes between countries, because the way that a crime is defined in the US will be different than it is defined in e.g. Canada. So these are rough comparisons, but essential correct, even if not perfect in all the particulars.)
Thank you that was an interesting read and I learned something new.
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.
We have well-regulated militias.
They’re called the National fucking Guard.
Every Tom, Dick, and wife-beating Harry doesn’t need to walk around with enough firepower to massacre a neighborhood.
The Constitution is a framework of government, not a goddamn suicide pact. Society and technology have changed since it was written, and we aren’t worried about needing the family musket to form a citizen militia to repel the Brits invading from Canada. And even by the end of the Revolutionary War, the myth of farmer militias gave way to the reality of a professional army.
The national guard would be considered an army. It is not a permanent war economy army like our Army, Navy, Marines, but it is an army nonetheless. Permanent war armies are a relatively modern product.
Which is maybe a clue that amendment doesn’t really make sense in the modern world.
Personally, I’m much more for dismantling the permanent war economy and reducing the standing army by a few orders of magnitude. So much of our resources are stolen to keep a permanent war footing and maintain our our ~800 overseas bases. With the amount of money we spend to secure global military dominance, every single person in the entire country could have the worlds best healthcare, fully paid, no copays or anything.
So tbh, I’d rather move back towards a militia.
As much as I dislike the 2nd Ammendment, American prosperity is built on those overseas bases and the security that they provide to our allied countries. The modern globalized economy, which has benefited us IMMENSELY as a country is built on the promise that in exchange for America keeping the world safe for trade, almost all major countries use the American Dollar to back their own currency, and all oil is paid for in US Dollars.
The real problem is that we aren’t taxing the ultra-wealthy who are the ones getting all the money from the advantages of that globalized economy.
The Constitution is a framework of government, not a goddamn suicide pact.
This is really a the core of the current problem, I think. We’ll never get enough votes for an amendment of any kind IMO. R would vote against an amendment from D saying the sky was blue. So now we’re at a place where turning schools into prisons due to all the security measures and similar bandaids are the only things we can do.
I personally wouldn’t call that a militia. My understanding of a militia is that it’s a small group of people 20-40 max.
The national guard is significantly larger and much much more well organized.
That being said I agree with the rest of what you’ve said.
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.
AND in 18th century America they very specifically meant AR15 guns and similar weapons!
Well, it specifically included the right to own cannons, and full on gunships also. So, I don’t think they would have been too concerned about a single gun, when they intended for people to own what were then the most destructive weapons available.
Caetano - 2016
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/577/14-10078/
“The Second Amendment covers all weapons that may be defined as “bearable arms,” even if they did not exist when the Bill of Rights was drafted and are not commonly used in warfare.”
Not according to the Supreme Court:
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.”
Here’s the confusion…
Back when the 2nd Amendment was written, things like “well regulated” and “militia” meant different things than they do now.
The militia was comprised of all able bodied men who could be called up at any time for defense. They were literally members of the general public.
Well regulated meant “well armed and equipped”.
So knowing this, the 2nd Amendment makes perfect sense.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Reads as:
“A well armed and equipped populace, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The key phrase here is “right of the people”. All people.
But arguably, women are not subject to being called up due to not in the selective service. So take the guns away from females. /s
Pretty sure this all pre-dates selective service, but let’s check…
Wow, yeah, conscription didn’t start until the Civil War in 1861, and the Selective Service itself, not until WWI in 1917:
Huh, almost like things can and should change after it was written. So fuck the 2nd amendment and anyone that defends it.
I think it was Jefferson who argued the Constitution should have been re-written every 10 years?
Let me see if I can find the quote…
19 years…
“Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19. years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right.”
Madison was the one to kill that idea.
But as it stands, the 2nd Amendment is the law of the land. You don’t have to like it, and there are things you can do about it:
-
Get an Amendment started. You have to get 290 votes in the House and 67 votes in the Senate. Then get it ratified by 34 State Houses.
-
Get it re-interpreted by the Supreme Court. You do this by electing Democratic Presidents in '24 and '28. That gives a solid Democratic White House until 2032.
The Supreme Court leans 6-3 Conservative.
The two oldest judges are Thomas (75) and Alito (73). If they are replaced by a Democratic President, that will turn the court back 5-4 Liberal.When you look at the next three oldest though: Sotomayor (69), Roberts (68), Kagan (63).
It doesn’t do much good to flip Thomas and Alito in the next 10 years, then lose Sotomayor, Kagan, and a reliable swing vote like Roberts 5-10 years after that.
So now you’re looking at having to have Democrats hold the White House in '24, '28, '32, '36 and possibly '40.
-
It says state constitution.
And if the state voted against it, seems they should change the constitution.
Just like they should be doing with a bunch of amendments at the federal level to the US constitution.
Doesn’t really matter what our state constitution says if the federal constitution blocks it.
There’s actually a lot of ugly language in our state constitution:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_black_exclusion_laws
I won’t quote it here as it’s not fit for human consumption. :(
Arms. Not guns.
We’ve decided it’s not okay for someone to have a Patriot missile, nuclear landmine, warships, and many other arms.
Not according to the Supreme Court, over and over again.
Heller - 2008:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/
“The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”
McDonald - 2010 (because Heller involved Washington D.C., a 2nd ruling showed that it also applies to states as well).
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/742/
“The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment extends the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms to the states, at least for traditional, lawful purposes such as self-defense.”
Caetano - 2016 - This one is fascinating. I wish more people read it. Woman had an abusive ex, bought a taser to protect herself. MA went after her arguing “tasers didn’t exist back then, 2nd Amendment doesn’t apply.” Supremes “um actually’d” them hard.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/577/14-10078/
“The Second Amendment covers all weapons that may be defined as “bearable arms,” even if they did not exist when the Bill of Rights was drafted and are not commonly used in warfare.”
Bruen - 2022
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/597/20-843/
"The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 780 (plurality opinion). 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."
Sooo…
When you look at all 4 of these rulings together…
Washington D.C. can’t ban an entire class of weapon, or require they be kept locked or disassembled. Militia membership is not required (Heller).
That same restriction applies to the States as well (McDonald).
The 2nd amendment applies to all bearable weapons, even those that did not exist at the time of writing (Caetano).
States cannot apply additional restrictions on gun ownership or possession (Bruen). Citizens only need to pass a criminal check.
Citizens only need to pass a criminal check.
No they don’t, at the pro-gun communities insistance.
They really do, and I say that as a gun owner. You are not free to skate on the criminal background check.
As a gun owner, I can sell you a gun tomorrow and you will not have to pass a background check. Private gun sales happen all over.
Private gun sales, at least in my state, still require an FFL and a background check to be legal.
A clear majority of citizens support universal background checks, but all that matters is that the gun lobby doesn’t.
Oh, I agree, and I’d like to go further by including things in the background check that aren’t currently present but should be.
Did you know, if someone goes through an involuntary mental health hold that is not ordered by a judge, that does NOT appear on a background check? Seriously. That shit needs to get fixed.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Buffalo_shooting
"A teacher had asked him about his plans after the school year, and he responded, “I want to murder and commit suicide.”[65] He was referred to a hospital for mental health evaluation and counseling but was released after being held for a day and a half.[20][64][66]
The New York State Police did not seek an order from a state court to remove guns from Gendron’s possession.[67][68] The mental health evaluation was not an involuntary commitment, which would have prohibited him from buying guns under federal law.[67]"
You’re ignorant
Citizens only need to pass a criminal check.
But I thought it was a Right not a right*
Rights can be removed for criminal behavior. This is why we have prisons.
So you agree that even “absolute” rights should definitely have limits and be denied to certain people and we’re just arguing about where that line should be then?
So does the Supreme Court, they just haven’t found a restriction they approve of yet.
The next ones to watch would be the one on domestic abusers. Or the one on drug users.
https://www.npr.org/2023/11/07/1208501397/supreme-court-guns-domestic-abusers
In the case of the former, I hope they uphold it.
In the case of the latter, I hope they make an exception for states where marijuana is legal.
But with this court, who knows what they’ll do?
Except that there are other restrictions and as has already been pointed out, you still can’t own any weapon you want. This fact is something you should be admitting and grappling with. You can’t simply ignore it, as you seem to want to do. It may be that there’s an intellectually coherent way around it, but if so I have yet to see you or anyone else, let alone the SCOTUS, lay it out.
This intellectual inconsistency is, I would argue, a direct result of the fact that all of the decisions you mention above are based on a faulty reading of the 2nd.
You can own any weapon you want, provided you’re a legal gun owner and you’re willing to fill out the proper ATF forms and pay the (exorbitant) fees and taxes.
You want a machine gun? Here’s how you get a machine gun:
https://rocketffl.com/who-can-own-a-full-auto-machine-gun/
You want a silencer? Here’s how you get a silencer:
https://www.silencershop.com/how-to-buy-a-silencer
Clean record? The only limiter is money and how willing you are to do paperwork. ;)
I assume you agree with SCOTUS on Dredd Scott and ending Roe v. Wade since that’s what makes things right.
It doesn’t matter what I think about Supreme Court decisions, I am neither a lawyer nor a judge. They rule the way they rule, it’s up to smarter people than me to work around that.
I could see, in the wake of Roe v. Wade, a modern underground railroad shuttling women from red states to get the proper care they need. Some states are already attempting to block that, but then that would run afoul of “freedom of movement.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law
Got it. “I am not a lawyer or a judge, so I can’t say if Dredd Scott was a bad decision.”
I think the rest of us can figure out that not letting slaves go free was a bad decision despite not being lawyers or judges.
No court has ever interpreted any right granted by the constitution as absolutely as you believe. All rights have limits.
The Supreme Court has stated that they do believe the 2nd Amendment is restricted, but so far, since 2008, they have struck down all challenges:
Washington D.C. can’t ban an entire class of weapon (handguns), or require they be kept locked or disassembled. Militia membership is not required (Heller, 2008).
That same restriction applies to the States as well (McDonald, 2010).
The 2nd amendment applies to all bearable weapons, even those that did not exist at the time of writing (Caetano, 2016).
States cannot apply additional restrictions on gun ownership or possession (Bruen, 2022). Citizens only need to pass a criminal check.
Jordan, people here don’t care whether some bought and paid for judges allowed immoral interpretations of the 2nd amendment. They are arguing that those interpretations are wrong. You can quote legal scripture as much as you like. It doesn’t change the fact that those decisions were wrong and continue to be wrong and our society is worse off because of it.
But guns cost money. That barrier needs to be removed.
You kid, but that’s a common argument and was an argument against Measure 114. All it does is make it more expensive to own a gun and that’s more of a barrier for minorities.
that’s a common argument and was an argument against Measure 114. All it does is make it more expensive to own a gun
I wonder that law is for higher education. Or healthcare.
You have describe the problem perfectly. 2A is an extremely blunt law with zero nuance. At least that’s how it has been interpreted by the courts. And that’s a clearly a huge problem. If the amendment allowed for common sense laws, that would be one thing, but we keep hearing over and over that 2A simply doesn’t allow it. Well then 2A is the problem.
And then the problem becomes you need a new Amendment to change it and that starts by getting a 2/3rds vote in the House… 290 votes.
They can’t get 290 votes to decide who their own leader should be, or that George Santos should be bounced.
We’re actually closer to calling for a full re-write of the Constitution, but when you consider that idea is being driven by the right wing, don’t hold out hope their version will contain gun control.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution
The right will demand abortion restriction and gun rights, the left will demand gun restriction and abortion rights, and the whole process dies.
How hard do you smugly smile typing that, knowing we’ll probably never have the votes to amend the constitution ever again for any purpose?
Knowing that, our only hope is to get a supreme court that will interpret it in a way that might let us save some lives.
Oh, it’s not smug. Horrified, never smug.
I do hope that people will eventually realize that Republicans can’t run a government and throw them all out, but I suspect their voters aren’t interested in a functional government either.
That’s how it has been interpreted lately.
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!”
Yet, states are able to take away a person’s Right to vote when they go to prison.
Because there is no right to vote in the Constitution, it fell to the states.
https://www.democracydocket.com/analysis/what-does-the-constitution-say-about-the-right-to-vote/
“The original Constitution doesn’t have much to say about the right to vote. Indeed, nowhere in the text does it explicitly say that citizens have the right to vote in elections. Instead, it merely states that anyone eligible to vote for the largest house of a state’s legislature is also eligible to vote for members of the House of Representatives from that state. As a result, states were left with the power to decide who qualified to vote, leading to considerable variation in the nation’s early years. While most states initially restricted voting to property-owning or tax-paying white men, some states, like New Jersey, allowed free Black men and women of both races to vote provided they met the property or tax requirements. While states soon began expanding voting rights to more citizens, this process unfolded unevenly because it was left up to each state. New Jersey actually revoked the vote from Black men and women in 1807 and North Carolina didn’t remove a property qualification until 1856. Similarly, Wyoming granted women the right to vote in 1869, long before all women achieved it nationally. This variability continues today, which is why felons can vote in some states but not in others.”
So some states let you vote from prison, some don’t. Some restore the right on release, some don’t.
The constitution doesn’t grant many extremely important rights – including the right to vote – because it was written by slave owners who didn’t want to grant those rights to slaves and women.
If they did add those things, they would have had to explicitly state those rights where for white men only.
I assume if they had, all the pro-gun people saying “we need to arm mass shooters and idiots because its in the constitution” would also be pro-slavery and anti-suffrage too, since they staunchly oppose changing the constitution no matter how backwards and immoral it may be.
Oh, I’m not opposed to changing the Constitution, I just want people to recognize that given our CURRRENT standing in Congress, it’s a logistical impossibility.
290 votes in the House to even START changing it…
ROFL!
Fixed the headline - Judge rules that Americans need more mass shootings before anything changes.
Fixed the headline - Judge rules that Americans need more mass shootings
before anything changes.FTFY
“Man uses a fork to rake leaves, rails against tree for the fork not working”
deleted by creator
That’s only tengentially related to my comment?
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.
Oh the horror!
Right?
States rights people really confused prolly.
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.
deleted by creator
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…
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?
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.
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.
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.
You’re not wrong. At that point, all we can do is protest and strike.
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.
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.
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.
That is much more clear than the 2nd Amendment. That mentions the right to bear arms for self defense. The 2nd Amendment mentions the right to bear arms to defend the state.
This is true, the 2nd Amendment specifically states that the right to keep and bear arms is necessary for “a Free State”.
However, enter the Supreme Court:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/
Really, the history of the issue and the citations they made are all worth reading before you get to the conclusion:
“As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights,[Footnote 27] banning from the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” 478 F. 3d, at 400, would fail constitutional muster.”
So then people who have a history of using them for crime which is very much not self defense ought not apply?
If they’re convicted felons, yes.
And yet the court said the opposite, because they don’t care
No court has ruled that felons can be gun owners, nor should they.
Read the article. An a law requiring background checks to block felons from purchasing guns was blocked, so they can only enforce it after the fact
That’s not what this law proposed. The background check blocking felons from purchasing a gun is still in place and it’s a federal regulation, not a state one.
What the court blocked was a requirement that you get certified training (which doesn’t exist) and a background check BEFORE you can buy a gun.
So it was a super-double background check which was wholly unmerited.
“The court finds that 10-round magazine bans are no panacea to prevent a mass shooter,” he wrote.
“People tend to believe these events are prolific and happening all the time with massive levels of death and injury,” he added. “The court finds this belief, though sensationalized by the media, is not validated by the evidence.”
Yeah, the judge sounded more interested in his own opinions than the law.
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-2094424b0cea9e6a2eda34f280cb1156Or 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."
That’s what makes gun control such a difficult problem. People seem to forget that it is a right and those have extra weight behind them. While I want better gun control, I also don’t want our rights to be easily thrown away. The fact that the idea of a constitutional amendment seems so far fetched right now should be strong enough evidence that the system, as it was designed, has failed.
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.
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.
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…
-
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.
-
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.
On the other hand, it only takes 5 judges to reinterpret the constitution…
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.
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.
-
“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.
I kinda feel there’s a false equivalence there. I can’t kill arbitrary people as a result of exercising my first and sixth amendment rights.
Doesn’t the right of others around you to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness have equal standing? Seems reasonable to me to take steps to ensure you are less likely take away life by accident or malicious intent.
Y’know, we really ought to pass a law that makes it illegal to kill people…
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness aren’t Constitutional guarantees. Nor is the statement that all men are created equal. That’s the Declaration of Independence. ;)
I didn’t say it was.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
So we no longer find these truths to be self-evident, because they are in the wrong document? Fair point that the standing is therefore not equal. Nonetheless I quite value my life, and find it reasonable to expect my armed neighbors to be trained in a way to minimize the risk to me from from their 2A rights.
Still true that exercising the 1st and 6th don’t empower you to kill any random person you see. The court’s argument is a false equivalence.
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.
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.
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.
You folks should educate yourself before blanket statement saying, “Gun control gud, me vote fast for boom boom pow ban.” If you read Measure 114 it’s not at all gun control.
You simply cannot walk into any legitimate firearm store and legally purchase a firearm without filling out paperwork to undergo a background check. Period. So get that out of your head. It’s not possible. You have to fill out a 4473 from any dealer holding an FFL, any legal gun dealer has been issued an FFL by the ATF and is required by FEDERAL law to maintain records of their firearm sales for x amount of years so they can conduct and audit at the drop of a hat.
Measure 114 was pushing for Oregonians to have to take a class, approved by Law Enforcement, in order to apply for a permit to apply to begin the process to buy a firearm. So for my slow friends out there this would be like going to a car dealership, wanting to buy a sedan, having to present to them your state mandated document saying you have taken a class and passed, received a permit to be at the dealership looking at cars, before you can even test drive or start the conversation of purchasing that sedan. Then once you are ready to purchase said car, you have to begin the FEDERALLY mandated background check and jump through a completely different set of hoops.
Measure 114 was also pushed so quickly onto the ballot, Oregon State Police had no time to create curriculum for the mandated course, local law enforcement agencies (who were already facing budget cuts and staff shortages) had to figure a way to process these classes and additional applications and background checks that they never had to deal with.
As for the magazine ban, your typical handgun magazine holds 17 rounds. Again for my slow friends that’s 7 more than the proposed limit of 10. An AR magazine holds 30 rounds. These are not the kinds of magazines that should be the target of a magazine capacity ban. These were specifically designed for effective personal defense. You should look up from medical journals how many rounds from a handgun (9mm or larger) and an AR (.223 or larger) it takes to stop a full grown adult. The answer will surprise you, it’s close to 2/3’s or 66% of a handgun mag for one home invader. That leaves the average person 1.5 rounds short to protect them and their family should, God forbid, the unthinkable happen. Now you add adrenaline, nerves, and whatever other factor in and you realize that person is probably not going to land every shot perfectly on the invader. Now what. Should they just sit there and watch while the invader take advantage of their family?
You’ve cut funding for law enforcement. I’ve sat on hold for 30 minutes while calling in an active rape in a major city waiting for backup to respond. The police can only do so much, we have tied their hands with minimal funding and increased legislation. Is gun control a must absolutely, but educated control is the answer. Not blind support for any bill labeled, “Gun Control.”
You had me up until “fund the police state” as if US police unions aren’t already the most powerful groups in the country to be a member of, as if any state or municipality has meaningfully cracked down on policing abuses, as if the US doesn’t already have incarceration rates 5x the next NATO member, as if the US doesn’t already spend more on policing than all but 2 nations do on their militaries, as if police spending ever dropped even 1%, and as if supposed funding cuts aren’t just city council members shuffling the numbers around while the departments themselves see steady budget growth year-over-year.
Your experience is simply finding yourself calling in an incident on the wrong street for the wrong person, a call the officers know won’t affect their bottom line. It’s always been the case, whether passively delaying responses or actively corralling rioters away from wealthy districts. It’s not because they’re suffering for funding, it’s because they know they can get away with it.
I’m sorry but you don’t know what you’re talking about. I feel bad life experiences have led you to feel the way you do but you simply don’t know the truth. I can over another example of calling 911, being placed on hold for 15 minutes, bounced around dispatch centers three times and then finally connected to the correct one and then waiting on scene of a fentanyl overdose for 45 minutes because the nearest available officer, again in a major city, was the only one who could respond.
These are the decisions of people voting to cut funding. This has nothing to do with police unions, who are funded directly out of the police officers paychecks by the way. If you’d like to discuss police reform, which this country does need, I’d be happy to do that on another forum but this discussion is about gun control. My point with mentioning the police was that we as private citizens are facing fewer and fewer options to protect ourselves. Thank you for your perspective.
911 funding is a convoluted mess between municipalities and states that’s separate from “funding for law enforcement” and HAS been woefully under budgeted, especially as systems need upgrading.
Calling cops to an overdose instead of EMS is part of the fucking problem.
Thank you for the vulgarities to express your point. I can assure you I am better versed in the world of first responders. My point is that the city in which I live is so understaffed on police that there was nobody to respond to provide cover for Fire and EMS to conduct their duties for the overdosing individual.
like going to a car dealership, wanting to buy a sedan, having to present to them your state mandated document saying you have taken a class and passed, received a permit to be at the dealership looking at cars, before you can even test drive
I’m not agreeing or disagreeing as I haven’t read M114.
I don’t live in Oregon, but I’m pretty sure dealerships don’t let you drive off without a driver’s license?I do live in Oregon and have a nearby dealership with a giant sign that says, “no license needed.” And there is no requirement to have a license to buy a car in any state that I’ve lived in.
Interesting.
Couldn’t the police arrest you as soon as you leave the lot?If you drive the car onto public roads you would then be breaking the law and most likely you would have trouble applying for plates for the car. Traffic enforcement here isn’t exactly on top of anything. If you wanted the car delivered to your home or any private property it would be perfectly legal. Based on the number of unplated vehicles and frequency of uninsured motorist incidents here, I’d be a bit shocked if any enforcement occurred.
Thanks for your time and info.
Around here, all dealerships require you show them a drivers licence and proof of insurance before you can drive off.
You could buy it and have it delivered without one though.That makes more sense to me than expecting traffic cops to even find let alone enforce after the fact.
TBH, I never thought much about it and kinda assumed it was universal.
Gonna need some sources on those home invasion stats. I have no horse in this race–it’s not my state–but anybody who says it takes more than ten shots to stop an attacker is going to have to show me something to bulk up their credibility. I’m not going to just take your word on that. Even assuming the stat were technically true, if you can’t stop a home intruder in ten shots, the magazine isn’t the problem.
Also the car dealership analogy doesn’t hold up, as, in fact, you must show proof that you have passed a legally required test before you will be allowed to test drive a car. It’s not an outrageous requirement.
Finally, in what universe is a 30 round AR specifically designed for personal defense?
You obviously don’t understand firearms and this is not the place to educate you on them. I am proud of you for questioning stats on the internet, now go and research them for yourself. Use medical journals as your sources. Or university studies. Wikipedia, Tik Tok and the likes don’t count.
As far as the car dealership analogy you’ve missed the point. To even begin the conversation you have to have an extra certification. I’m not talking about your driver’s license. And again I am pro gun control.
As for the AR’s 30 round mag. Research, again through academic sources, the history and purpose of the AR and you’ll understand it’s not a “weapon of mass destruction.” The 30 round capacity is misleading to the firearms capabilities.
Thank you for your perspective I wish you luck in your educational journey!
That’s a lot of words to say, “I have no way to back up my claims.” “Go research for yourself” is the last bastion of those whose arguments fail to stand up to scrutiny. You have a lot to say, and so far in this thread the only single piece of evidence you’ve provided is a Youtube video. The AR’s history is that it’s a weapon of war.
I get the impression you have a lot of personal experience with guns, and you’ve probably been exposed to training in order to increase your comfort level, but “go research for yourself, and your research will obviously make you agree with me” doesn’t change the reality that you haven’t actually given any evidence for the stats you spouted. Save the condescension for your family and neighbors.
If you want your position to be taken seriously, back it up. Otherwise, everyone will continue to care nothing whatever about what you say.
That’s all.
Pot calling the kettle black. Unlike you, I have read the bill. I knew what I voted for when I chose not to support Measure 114. You asked me to hand you supporting evidence for my viewpoints on a silver platter, I don’t do that for keyboard warriors such as yourself. If you’d like to show your interested in a legitimate discussion by showing some sort of fact from your way of looking at it I’m happy to look at it. Your sarcastic claim that I “obviously want you to agree with me” is grotesquely mistaken and again keyboard warrior click bait. Good luck with your journey, you obviously have nothing further to offer.
You might have had some decent points, but I’m not going to try an adult discussion with anyone who already talks to me like this before the discussion has even begun:
Gun control gud, me vote fast for boom boom pow ban.”
So for my slow friends out there
Again for my slow friends
That’s your choice. But when it comes to gun control, opposition typically approaches it in an adolescent manner. I’d be happy to hear your point of view and refrain from attacks on your intelligence, but I’d like to see fact based logic like I presented instead of fear based thinking like 99% of the posts on here. Most people read the article title and refused to research further. That’s the point I was proving. People need to think about critical issues before sounding off and impacting lives. Whether it be attacking our pro choice rights, telling someone they can’t marry who they love, or limiting what can be read in a school. Ignorance and fear govern the decisions of the masses.
I’d be happy to hear your point of view and refrain from attacks on your intelligence
Given that you pre-emptively attacked it, I doubt that very much. I’ll save that conversation for someone else.
Good Day, Sir or Madam.
“So for my slow friends out there this would be like going to a car dealership, wanting to buy a sedan, having to present to them your state mandated document saying you have taken a class and passed, received a permit to be at the dealership looking at cars, before you can even test drive or start the conversation of purchasing that sedan.”
Oh, Oregon doesn’t require that you have a driver’s license to drive a car? A driver’s license that requires a cursory background check, a written knowledge check and a skills test? You aren’t talking about a document like that? Let’s go further, every where I’ve test driven a car, they want proof of insurance too, so you also need an allowance from a corporate, non-government, controlling entity in order to even begin being considered to be allowed to test drive a car?
Do you think about anything critically, or do you just spout shit and assume that people are going to agree with you, just because you agree with you?
I agree with 99% of what you said… but I take issue with this:
“You should look up from medical journals how many rounds from a handgun (9mm or larger) and an AR (.223 or larger) it takes to stop a full grown adult. The answer will surprise you, it’s close to 2/3’s or 66% of a handgun mag for one home invader.”
I’d distinguish “stopping a person” from “stopping a crime”. :)
Yes, your average drugged out perp is not going to go down easy.
But you don’t have to put them down, you just have to get them to leave.
Every gun owner makes a critical error one time… forgetting to put on hearing protection. ;) You do it once, you never forget. Yes, I include myself in that.
In an enclosed space, firing once, if the person has an ounce of common sense, it will send them running.
Source:
I’m not sure I understand what you’re trying to articulate here. What does sound have to do with anything? Firearms are not “noise deterrents.” And firing a warning shot is not an appropriate means of firearm safety let alone a viable option for protecting loved ones or yourself. I’d be excited to understand your point better.
The sound of a gun will send people running even if you don’t shoot them. Watch the video linked at the bottom.
You should never blindly fire a firearm. That’s the first rule of gun safety. I’m not watching a video promoting unsafe firearm practices. You’re part of the problem if you’re promoting blind firing a gun inside your house or anywhere. Buy some firecrackers and pull a Home Alone if that’s your desired effect, not a firearm.
It wasn’t a blind fire, you’d know that if you watched the video. ;)
3 guys kick down a door and break into a house.
They wander into a bedroom where the homeowner is.
Homeowner fires multiple shots.
The three dudes shit themselves and flee in a panic.
So, again, the number of shots needed to bring someone down isn’t necessarily the same as the number of shots needed to end an encounter, and ending the encounter is the most important part. You don’t have to drop someone, all you have to do is convince them to re-think their life choices.
Sooooo a firearm was a tool used to defend their home. Because the homeowner knew their target. One of four basic firearm safety rules. Huh.
Their intention was not to “create sound.” Aren’t you proving my point? A well armed homeowner successfully defended their home? Nobody should EVER use the sounds of gunshots to deter anybody from any action. It’s irresponsible and an unsafe firearm ownership practice. Period.
It’s people like you who jeopardize the Second Amendment Rights of responsible firearm owners all across this country.
No, what I’m saying is you don’t need to shoot someone 10 times to drop them when any sane person will start to flee after the first shot.
Focusing on “number of shots needed to drop a target” is a bogus metric. “Number of shots needed to end an encounter” is all you need.
By the math above, homeowner would have needed 30+ shots to stop 3 intruders. They didn’t. Not even close to that. Because the three intruders fled when met with force.
Good. Laws such as this are evil, but lots of people are stupid enough to support it
