+- 6.5 Grendel Forum (https://65grendel.com)
+-- Forum: 6.5 GRENDEL FORUM NEWS (https://65grendel.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Forum: General Discussion (https://65grendel.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=26)
+--- Thread: Oregons mag ban, gun permit BM114, is dead. Oregon judge enjoined (/showthread.php?tid=26070)
Oregons mag ban, gun permit BM114, is dead. Oregon judge enjoined - grayfox - 11-22-2023
More news as it develops
Oregons mag ban, gun permit BM114, is dead. Oregon judge enjoined - biodsl - 11-23-2023
This case was filed in Circuit Court of Harney County on the grounds that the measure violated the Oregon constitution. Since the 2nd Amendment was not at play, Bruen didn't figure in. There was lots of testimony around the history firearm ownership and technology during the adoption of the Oregon constitution in the 1850's. A five part (5!) balancing test was applied to determined constitutionality. Judge Raschio found the magazine capacity limit unconstitutional, as well as the permit-to-purchase requirement. The State provided no evidence that the measure would increase public safety. Two sheriff's testified the measure would decrease public safety for the citizen's of their counties. The FBI testified they are not authorized to run criminal histories checks for non-law enforcement entities (the measure specifies FBI checks communicated to government "designees").
Immediately upon issuance of the ruling, the Oregon Attorney General issued a statement: The Harney County judges ruling is wrong. Worse, it needlessly puts Oregonians lives at risk. The state will file an appeal and we believe we will prevail, Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum said in a statement.
This is not over.
Oregons mag ban, gun permit BM114, is dead. Oregon judge enjoined - grayfox - 11-23-2023
Probably not over yet...
But you're in a better condition than if the judge had allowed it to go into effect.
Many times state constitutions are worded differently than the US, which can be a good thing.
Oregons mag ban, gun permit BM114, is dead. Oregon judge enjoined - biodsl - 11-23-2023
grayfox Wrote:Many times state constitutions are worded differently than the US, which can be a good thing.
From Article 1, 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.
Oregons mag ban, gun permit BM114, is dead. Oregon judge enjoined - LRRPF52 - 11-23-2023
When it comes to rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights, which are not granted by government, State Constitutions cant restrict those, yet they have been getting away with it for generations.
A State falls out of line with the US Constitution when they violate the rights of the people, and press beyond the restrictions imposed by the Bill of Rights on States or the Federal government.
There are people who think that Federalism or Supremacy means Federal or State laws take precedence over individual rights, even if the Bill of Rights specifically restricts them from doing so.
Supremacy means that Federal laws are uniform and applied across the States, especially when it comes to some States creating conflicting laws with other States on matters that were previously structured uniformly.
Its hard to find a more clear-cut example of how explicit the Founders were with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms as one of these uniform pillars, yet the Supreme Court has not checked States who violate it as a rule.
We dont have a Nation of uniform law based on the bill of rights if youre a free man in one State, able to exercise your rights, while in another, they are expressly denied to you.
This is the situation in which we find ourselves today, where tyrannical State legislatures have tramples over the Bill of Rights repeatedly, until it feels normal and acceptable to them, all in the name of crime prevention.