Federal judge rules Oregon’s tough new gun law is constitutional
https://apnews.com/article/oregon-gun-control-law-ruling-da3778b8f6022c53a3cb940c4e4a6349Open linkView original on lemmy.worldSyndicated from the fediverse. Read and engage on the original instance.
View original on lemmy.worldhttps://apnews.com/article/oregon-gun-control-law-ruling-da3778b8f6022c53a3cb940c4e4a6349Open linkView original on lemmy.world
18 replies
They are going to have a hard time proving magazine capacity limits have historical precedent on appeal. Such gun control was only implemented within the last few decades.
I also can't see this part surviving appeal:
Oregon set the capacity limit at 10 rounds. Practically every handgun commonly used for self-defense has a capacity of at least 15.
The judge is dumb because I, an idiot, can not read anywhere in the U.S. Constitution where it says the Second Amendment was written with self-defense in mind.
It literally only says that everyone can own a firearm because a militia (an organization that exists outside of the military or law enforcement institutions, but answers to a state governor) is necessary to maintain a free country protected from any threats to the country.
And a militia can't exist without regular people being able to own guns, so they can train with them, hence where it says "well regulated militia": meaning in good working order. You can't have a militia in good working order without being able to train with your firearm.
Well, older than that. Gun control are the last of the Jim Crow laws. Its why you have to pay giant tax stamps and get permits and all, its to keep minorities from arming themselves.
Here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here
We can keep going if you want more links and maybe a peer-reviewed study. Any form of limiting firearms is rooted in racism to restrict minorities from having agency in their communities.
@JustZ how the fuck are you a lawyer and never understood the history of firearm legislation? Nepotism sounds likely.
Thanks. I wouldn't have bothered to get links, and definitely not that many links.
If they're going to require historical scholarship when evaluating gun laws, they should not be surprised when that effort exposes the lie that "guns were allowed to be brought anywhere for any reason"
After all, even the famous shootout at the OK Corral happened over enforcement of a regulation prohibiting gun carrying in town.
The law and history are clear.
There are two types of open carrying.
Purposive open carry, predicated on a valid purpose, allowed bankers, sheriffs, coachmen, judicial marshals, hunters, or persons who had been threatened, to carry concealed.
Habitual open carry on the other hand was never legal. It was a sign of a lawless, no good place, and was arrestable as a breach of peace, which it undeniably is.
The required historical scholarship is particularly before the Civil War as after slaves were freed Southern states implemented a series of laws that obviously were meant to disarm free Black Americans. This point is regarded as being a shift away from the original understanding.
OK Corral's shootout occured in 1881 (after the war).
Also when looking for historical precedent favor is to be given to the commonly accepted practice. So if one town did X and the rest of the country did Y, Y is the correct historical precedent.
This is fantastic news
Don’t worry. It’ll be appealed and appealed until they get the ruling they want
Sure, but hope springs eternal