Oregon Measure 114. Sets new rules for the purchase of firearms.

[SavannahMann]

And I said (and you quoted) but apparently did not read:

"[Text] is not the only test . . . The test is three-pronged, text, relevant history and tradition.​

​

A law must be shown to either be directly represented in ratification period history (1791) or have at least some historical analogue in that period that can show a traditional intent to bar such persons from gun possession and use."​

The question about "text" is; does the history of the nation show that persons found guilty for crimes that jeopardize public safety, peace, or order, (in a constitutionally sufficient proceeding), have been traditionally excluded from “the people”?

If “the people” means the same thing under the First and Second Amendments—and those who abuse their rights and commit crimes and violence can be constitutionally excluded from the First Amendment’s protections, they may be excluded from the Second Amendment’s protections.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1179400/gov.uscourts.txwd.1179400.66.0.pdf

Traditionally those released from Prison were able to buy guns no problem. This was even true of escaped convicts. There was no background check. Anyone able to look over the counter and fork over the money was able to buy guns.

Including fully automatic weapons.

When Teddy Roosevelt went up San Juan Hill he was supported by two early Machine Guns which were privately purchased and donated by a wealthy patron.

Convicted Felons being prohibited from owning firearms is a modern standard. Started in the 20th Century wasn’t it?

Foreigners were allowed to buy guns. There was no citizenship requirement. Nor any prohibition for any reason. If you had the cash you could buy the gun.

 

[Rogue AI]

Canada has very similar laws and they aren't a shithole.

Guess you missed that trucker thing.

 

[2aguy]

Well. The Supreme Court didn’t rule on magazine capacity in Bruen. He is right about that.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

And the plain text doesn’t cover a lot. For example. Many Arms are currently banned. Try to buy an Uzi as one example.

Several states have magazine capacity limits. Colorado as one. Now this law is being challenged. But let’s see where your love of the plain text ends.

High-capacity magazine ban challenged in new lawsuit

A firearm group’s fight against gun restrictions in Colorado continues with a new challenge to the state’s large-capacity magazine ban.

kdvr.com

Why can’t convicted felons own firearms? Nothing in the plain text of the Second prohibits it. Does it?

Wrong.......you guys can tap dance all you want, but Bruen changes everything.....

 

[Abatis]

Traditionally those released from Prison were able to buy guns no problem. This was even true of escaped convicts. There was no background check. Anyone able to look over the counter and fork over the money was able to buy guns.

Including fully automatic weapons.

When Teddy Roosevelt went up San Juan Hill he was supported by two early Machine Guns which were privately purchased and donated by a wealthy patron.

Convicted Felons being prohibited from owning firearms is a modern standard. Started in the 20th Century wasn’t it?

Foreigners were allowed to buy guns. There was no citizenship requirement. Nor any prohibition for any reason. If you had the cash you could buy the gun.

It strikes me as a complete waste of time for me to treat your replies with any seriousness.

You obviously do not read what I write and if you do, you fail to demonstrate any comprehension of it.

I provide links to the most authoritative, original sources and you again and again, ask questions that, if you only read what I provided, would be answered. I feel no need to defend what I have told you. or engage in a circular debate with you when you choose to ignore the information that you claim to be interested in.

It is clear your only interest in this discussion is being a useless, boring contrarian to whatever is presented.

.

 

[M14 Shooter]

And the plain text doesn’t cover a lot. For example. Many Arms are currently banned. Try to buy an Uzi as one example.
Several states have magazine capacity limits. Colorado as one. Now this law is being challenged. But let’s see where your love of the plain text ends.

In all of the relevant circuit court decisions, the courts said both 'assault weapons' and 'high capacity' magazines fall under the right to keep and bear arms as protected by the 2nd ... BUT ... the restrictions are allowable under intermediate scrutiny.
The USSC, in Bruen, literally, threw intermediate scrutiny out the window.
This leaves leaves plain text intact, and places the burden on the state to show those restrictions are consistent with historical tradition of firearm regulation in the US.
Do you think the state(s) can present a sound argument to that effect? Why?

Why can’t convicted felons own firearms? Nothing in the plain text of the Second prohibits it. Does it?

Seems to me this is ripe for challenge.
Same with the federal restrictions on owning automatic weapons.

 

[SavannahMann]

It strikes me as a complete waste of time for me to treat your replies with any seriousness.

You obviously do not read what I write and if you do, you fail to demonstrate any comprehension of it.

I provide links to the most authoritative, original sources and you again and again, ask questions that, if you only read what I provided, would be answered. I feel no need to defend what I have told you. or engage in a circular debate with you when you choose to ignore the information that you claim to be interested in.

It is clear your only interest in this discussion is being a useless, boring contrarian to whatever is presented.

.

I read and adapted to your argument. Right now it is that a Federal Court Judge left part in place. The Convicted Felons can’t own guns. But that doesn’t meat the original text of the Second does it?

I’ll bet money that right now someone is preparing a challenge on that. And right now someone is going to use the SC decision to challenge the prohibition on Felons who served their time from owning guns.

If we are talking traditionally. Then from the time of ratification through the 1800’s and into the 1900’s Felons who were released from Prison were able to buy guns.

How can that Federal Court Judges decision stand?

 

[Abatis]

I read and adapted to your argument. Right now it is that a Federal Court Judge left part in place. The Convicted Felons can’t own guns. But that doesn’t meat the original text of the Second does it?

Yes, if the recognition and protection of constitutional rights is traditionally only extended to "the people", the meaning and effect of that word, as a statement of a person's legal status is the singular determinant used to decide the question.

The case referred to shows that the stripping of certain rights is part of the punishment for crimes against the public peace and safety are part of the relevant history and tradition of regulatory measures for a broad panoply of rights.

Read the goddamned decision . . . Until you show at least some familiarity with it we are done.

.

 

[Devils_Advocate]

Since the OP did not provide a link, I will explain what Oregon's Measure 114 does.

First, to buy a gun you have to get a permit from the local police chief or sheriff which will cost you a fee, you have to pass a background check, and you have take a firearm safety class.

Second, high capacity magazines over 10 rounds are banned.

https://sos.oregon.gov/admin/Documents/irr/2022/017text.pdf

It will get tossed by the USSC.

 

[progressive hunter]

 

[Staidhup]

Since the OP did not provide a link, I will explain what Oregon's Measure 114 does.

First, to buy a gun you have to get a permit from the local police chief or sheriff which will cost you a fee, you have to pass a background check, and you have take a firearm safety class.

Second, high capacity magazines over 10 rounds are banned.

https://sos.oregon.gov/admin/Documents/irr/2022/017text.pdf

And that will end gun violence? HaHa Are Oregonians just fools or is it in the air? If one doesn’t believe drugs rot the brain they should just visit the commune along the river. West of the Cascades is simply bat shit crazy.

 

[g5000]

And that will end gun violence? HaHa Are Oregonians just fools or is it in the air? If one doesn’t believe drugs rot the brain they should just visit the commune along the river. West of the Cascades is simply bat shit crazy.

Dude.

I've been all over the globe. I've been to some of the worst places, and some of the best places.

I can tell you from firsthand experience that Oregonians are the biggest fucking control freaks on the planet.

They are also the most self-absorbed pricks in the world. They think about no one but themselves.

I don't know which of those two things is worse on an individual basis, but in concert they make Oregon one seriously fucked up place to deal with.

There are some truly wonderful people there. The best of the best. But they are vastly outnumbered by the assholes.