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

[Batcat]

IUSSC:
"...When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct...."

Thus...
Simple ownership and possession of a firearm is protected from these restrictions by the 2nd.
Ownership and possession of magazine with a capacity exceeding 10 rounds is protected from these restrictions by the 2nd.

Why do anti-gun loons continue to create restrictions they know are unconstitutional?

A person who passes all these requirements should get a concealed carry license as a reward.

Liberals keep insisting on 10 round magazines. I wonder if they lack physical dexterity as a magazine can be swapped out of a firearm very quickly. The video portion of the clip below starts about 1 min 40 seconds in.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

And I'm sure it will take months to get the permit in places the progressives control the police department and the local government. And the class will be offered once a year to 20 people only.

Will the police have their magazines follow the ban?

And the class will cost $1,000, be 3 days long and only be offered on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday.

 

[hjmick]

And the class will cost $1,000, be 3 days long and only be offered on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday.

Yeah, they are doing their very best to make owning a firearm fiscally prohibitive. In Oregon, only the rich and the criminals will be able to afford guns... and the criminals won't be following the new law when making their acquisition...

 

[martybegan]

And the class will cost $1,000, be 3 days long and only be offered on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday.

Once a year.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

So, it’s still unconstitutional

 

[M14 Shooter]

So, it’s still unconstitutional

Correct.
None of those restrictions will pass constitutional muster.
Thank you, Justice Thomas.

 

[2aguy]

Correct.
None of those restrictions will pass constitutional muster.
Thank you, Justice Thomas.

Until the democrats win the Senate....then they will abolish the filibuster and pack the Supreme Court......then the democrat brown shirt judges will strike down Heller, Bruen.......and all the rest.....of course, there will be no crying about "precedent," when they do this or any other things they will do....

 

[M14 Shooter]

Until the democrats win the Senate....

They have to win the house, too.

 

[Abatis]

USSC v Bruen had nothing to do witih high capacity magazines. . . .

California and New Jersey have 10 round magazine limits and the lower courts have upheld such bans.

The Supremes have not ruled yet.

The cases that you are referring to, that 'upheld' the NJ and CA mag limit laws, have been vacated by SCOTUS, they have no value as law. You pointing to them, only shows how little you know how the law works.

As I said, the lower courts have upheld such bans.

There was a pending appeal to SCOTUS of the 9th Circuit's opinion in Duncan v Bonta which upheld Cali's mag limit law.

In NYSRPA, SCOTUS rejected the legal reasoning the 2nd Circuit used to decide NYSRPA (the "two-step inquiry"), also used in about 70 other gun cases in the lower courts, including the 9th to decide Duncan and the 3rd Circuit's decision upholding NJ's law.

When the Court handed down NYSRPA, SCOTUS GVR'd those cases which means they Granted the appeal for certiorari, Vacated the lower court's decision and Remanded the case back to the lower court that screwed the pooch, "for further consideration in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U. S. ___ (2022)", to give them a chance to get it correct (which means, to strike down the unconstitutional law).

Screengrab from: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/063022zor_5he6.pdf

If the lower Circuit courts get it right this time, and the states don't stupidly appeal those losses to SCOTUS, there is no need for SCOTUS to speak again . . . SCOTUS has already spoken it is now the lower court's job to simply obey the Constitution and SCOTUS.

Maybe it's time for you to do the same?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Maybe it's time for you to do the same?

Anti-gun loons hate guns, and the idea that we have the right to own and use them.
They will never, ever, give up their effort to reduce this right as much as possible.

 

[2aguy]

They have to win the house, too.

Thanks for that......I thought biden just had to nominate them and then the Senate would confirm them..........we really need to win in 2024.......

 

[2aguy]

The cases that you are referring to, that 'upheld' the NJ and CA mag limit laws, have been vacated by SCOTUS, they have no value as law. You pointing to them, only shows how little you know how the law works.



There was a pending appeal to SCOTUS of the 9th Circuit's opinion in Duncan v Bonta which upheld Cali's mag limit law.

In NYSRPA, SCOTUS rejected the legal reasoning the 2nd Circuit used to decide NYSRPA (the "two-step inquiry"), also used in about 70 other gun cases in the lower courts, including the 9th to decide Duncan and the 3rd Circuit's decision upholding NJ's law.

When the Court handed down NYSRPA, SCOTUS GVR'd those cases which means they Granted the appeal for certiorari, Vacated the lower court's decision and Remanded the case back to the lower court that screwed the pooch, "for further consideration in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U. S. ___ (2022)", to give them a chance to get it correct (which means, to strike down the unconstitutional law).

View attachment 726228​

Screengrab from: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/063022zor_5he6.pdf

If the lower Circuit courts get it right this time, and the states don't stupidly appeal those losses to SCOTUS, there is no need for SCOTUS to speak again . . . SCOTUS has already spoken it is now the lower court's job to simply obey the Constitution and SCOTUS.

Maybe it's time for you to do the same?

Good to see you posting again.......enjoy your work.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Until the democrats win the Senate....then they will abolish the filibuster and pack the Supreme Court......then the democrat brown shirt judges will strike down Heller, Bruen.......and all the rest.....of course, there will be no crying about "precedent," when they do this or any other things they will do....

The Senate can't pack the court by itself.

 

[SavannahMann]

v Bruen, was decided, in part, to negate the 2-part process the lower courts used to uphold those magazine bans.

I ask again :
What about ""The Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct" leads you to conclude the court will uphold a magazine ban?

Don;t worry - we both know you don't have a meaningful response.
And so, your claim that the ban will be upheld is a statement of ignorance or dishonesty..

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?

 

[Abatis]

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

NYSRPA did not need to knock out every single unconstitutional gun law . . . Since Heller, the Circuit courts have devised a BS two-step process that served to sustain every challenged gun law.

SCOTUS directly and expressly rejected that process as it was used in the 2nd Circuit's NYSRPA decision and all the other 70 some-odd gun decisions in the Circuits . . .

The decisions that specifically sustained gun mag restrictions in CA and NJ were VACATED, that means they were crumpled-up and set on fire and SCOTUS ordered those Circuits to rehear the cases considering NYSRPA v Bruen.

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

Patience grasshopper . . .

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.

They are all going away, along with the various assault weapon bans . . .

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

That 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.

I'm not going to post a long explanation you will not read, I'm just going to link to CNN gun law expert Steve Gutkowski's article on the recent cases; one of which struck down the law prohibiting persons under felony indictment from having a gun, but upheld the felony conviction ban.

Actual knowledge and answers to your question at the link . . .

Federal Judge Who Struck Down Felony Indictment Gun Ban Upholds Conviction Ban

MSM news story link:

Americans under felony indictment have a right to buy guns, judge rules

A federal law prohibiting people under felony indictment from buying firearms is unconstitutional, a federal judge in Texas has concluded, citing a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that significantly expanded gun rights. U.S. District Judge David Counts, an appointee of Republican former President...

news.yahoo.com

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

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?

Here, buy an Uzi...

GROUP INDUSTRIES MODEL HR4332 UZI FULLY TRANSFERABLE MACHINE GUN E-FORM 3. - Machine Guns at GunBroker.com : 951479810

Buy GROUP INDUSTRIES MODEL HR4332 UZI FULLY TRANSFERABLE MACHINE GUN E-FORM 3. : GunBroker is the largest seller of Machine Guns Class 3 Firearms, NFA & Destructive Devices All: 951479810

www.gunbroker.com

They aren't banned.

 

[The Duke]

USSC:
"...When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct...."

Thus...
Simple ownership and possession of a firearm is protected from these restrictions by the 2nd.
Ownership and possession of magazine with a capacity exceeding 10 rounds is protected from these restrictions by the 2nd.

Why do anti-gun loons continue to create restrictions they know are unconstitutional?

Very UnConstitutional. It will be struck down, after a lot of people get hurt.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Pass too many laws and they all get ignored.

 

[SavannahMann]

NYSRPA did not need to knock out every single unconstitutional gun law . . . Since Heller, the Circuit courts have devised a BS two-step process that served to sustain every challenged gun law.

SCOTUS directly and expressly rejected that process as it was used in the 2nd Circuit's NYSRPA decision and all the other 70 some-odd gun decisions in the Circuits . . .

The decisions that specifically sustained gun mag restrictions in CA and NJ were VACATED, that means they were crumpled-up and set on fire and SCOTUS ordered those Circuits to rehear the cases considering NYSRPA v Bruen.




Patience grasshopper . . .



They are all going away, along with the various assault weapon bans . . .



That 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.

I'm not going to post a long explanation you will not read, I'm just going to link to CNN gun law expert Steve Gutkowski's article on the recent cases; one of which struck down the law prohibiting persons under felony indictment from having a gun, but upheld the felony conviction ban.

Actual knowledge and answers to your question at the link . . .

Federal Judge Who Struck Down Felony Indictment Gun Ban Upholds Conviction Ban

MSM news story link:

Americans under felony indictment have a right to buy guns, judge rules

A federal law prohibiting people under felony indictment from buying firearms is unconstitutional, a federal judge in Texas has concluded, citing a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that significantly expanded gun rights. U.S. District Judge David Counts, an appointee of Republican former President...

news.yahoo.com

If the Supreme Court is going off of the clear text of the Second. They have to restore gun rights to Convicted Felons. Period.

 

[Abatis]

If the Supreme Court is going off of the clear text of the Second. They have to restore gun rights to Convicted Felons. Period.

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