Federal judge says Oregon’s new gun rules don’t violate US Constitution

[Hawki97]

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. But then again, I’m not a gun nut loser.

“The law would ban future purchases of so-called “large capacity magazines” that can carry more than 10 rounds of ammunition. It also requires those wishing to buy a firearm to get a permit first. Permits will require applicants to complete a safety class and a federal background check.”

This guy’s argument about the Creator is pretty compelling though.

“These are our rights, endowed by our Creator and they belong to us and it’s not something for the government to give or take away as a privilege any time they see fit,” the National Shooting Sports Foundation’s Mark Oliva said prior to Immergut’s ruling. The group is among the plaintiffs arguing the state’s tighter gun laws infringe on the Second Amendment.

Federal judge says Oregon’s new gun rules don’t violate US Constitution

In a 122-page written order issued late Friday, U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut found banning large capacity magazines and requiring a permit to purchase a firearm are in keeping with “the nation’s history and tradition of regulating uniquely dangerous features of weapons and firearms...

www.opb.org

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. But then again, I’m not a gun nutter.

“The law would ban future purchases of so-called “large capacity magazines” that can carry more than 10 rounds of ammunition. It also requires those wishing to buy a firearm to get a permit first. Permits will require applicants to complete a safety class and a federal background check.”

This guy’s argument about the Creator is pretty compelling though.

“These are our rights, endowed by our Creator and they belong to us and it’s not something for the government to give or take away as a privilege any time they see fit,” the National Shooting Sports Foundation’s Mark Oliva said prior to Immergut’s ruling. The group is among the plaintiffs arguing the state’s tighter gun laws infringe on the Second Amendment.

Federal judge says Oregon’s new gun rules don’t violate US Constitution

In a 122-page written order issued late Friday, U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut found banning large capacity magazines and requiring a permit to purchase a firearm are in keeping with “the nation’s history and tradition of regulating uniquely dangerous features of weapons and firearms...

www.opb.org

The dumb thing is so many Christians will say these things not realizing or more likely not caring that they are engaged in false teaching.

There is nothing in scripture or tradition which indicates God gives us any rights on earth. His earliest and most important followers were tortured and killed for their faith, God did not arise to defend their rights then, he won't now.

Don't get me wrong I do think rights are a good thing. I just see no evidence that our creator granted them to us. Believing he did is Diest thinking not Christian thinking.

 

[Hawki97]

The dumb thing is so many Christians will say these things not realizing or more likely not caring that they are engaged in false teaching.

There is nothing in scripture or tradition which indicates God gives us any rights on earth. His earliest and most important followers were tortured and killed for their faith, God did not arise to defend their rights then, he won't now.

Don't get me wrong I do think rights are a good thing. I just see no evidence that our creator granted them to us. Believing he did is Diest thinking not Christian thinking.

It’s almost like it would be a good idea to keep religion and governing / government separate. If only someone would have thought of that when the American experiment started.

 

[BioHawk]

It’s almost like it would be a good idea to keep religion and governing / government separate. If only someone would have thought of that when the American experiment started.

In the, "If you ever had a time machine, what would you do" game, I would go back in time to the writing of the Bill of Rights and tell the founding fathers to be bluntly clear with the way they write these things. Maybe clarify them with statements. Specifically write the words "There shall always be a complete separation of religion and government".

Of course, even when they did write explicit instructions people today just ignore them. It's as if the phrasing "well-regulated" doesn't exist.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

It’s almost like it would be a good idea to keep religion and governing / government separate. If only someone would have thought of that when the American experiment started.

Meh this one is just quoting the declaration of independence. Of course the problem is the people who wrote it were diests. The other problem is the God like status we give to the founders. So many people treat the constitution and the declaration of independence like they are scripture.

 

[Hawki97]

I’m just glad to see there’s somebody out there trying to fight for common sense gun control. Ioway sure isn’t going to lead the charge.

 

[bhawk24bob]

I'd prefer an appellate judge offer a succinct ruling like Plantiff is not a member of a well-regulated militia and therefore has his suit dismissed...... so that the USSC must define what a well-regulated militia is. Nobody needs a 122 page ruling

 

[HawkNester]

It’s really annoying when we continue to allow fiction to rule reality.

 

[MeetTheFerentzes]

OMG! How are Oregon MAGAts supposed to hunt squirrels and defend their double-wides if they can't have as many assault rifles with large capacity magazines as they want without a permit? 2A, dude!

 

[hawkedoff]

In the, "If you ever had a time machine, what would you do" game, I would go back in time to the writing of the Bill of Rights and tell the founding fathers to be bluntly clear with the way they write these things. Maybe clarify them with statements. Specifically write the words "There shall always be a complete separation of religion and government".

Of course, even when they did write explicit instructions people today just ignore them. It's as if the phrasing "well-regulated" doesn't exist.

They would laugh at you. Someone would try to challenge you to a duel with pistols. Illegal of course but it happened. Another person might try and best you with a cane. A couple of them might agree with you.

The Founders were imperfect people and knew it. They did not walk in lockstep and many of the problems people have now with their work is the same things they struggled with at the time. Violence like duels and beatings actually happened. Many of those vague statements were by design and some were simply tge concessions that were made to satisfy multiple opinions.

The brilliance of the founders though is that they wrote in ability to change everything. They knew they got it wrong on the forever timeline.

 

[Hawki97]

They would laugh at you. Someone would try to challenge you to a duel with pistols. Illegal of course but it happened. Another person might try and best you with a cane. A couple of them might agree with you.

The Founders were imperfect people and knew it. They did not walk in lockstep and many of the problems people have now with their work is the same things they struggled with at the time. Violence like duels and beatings actually happened. Many of those vague statements were by design and some were simply tge concessions that were made to satisfy multiple opinions.

The brilliance of the founders though is that they wrote in ability to change everything. They knew they got it wrong on the forever timeline.

I’m not as big of a fanboy of the FF as you, but I’ll give you they’re probably smarter than our current populace. Low bar though.

 

[Gimmered]

In the, "If you ever had a time machine, what would you do" game, I would go back in time to the writing of the Bill of Rights and tell the founding fathers to be bluntly clear with the way they write these things. Maybe clarify them with statements. Specifically write the words "There shall always be a complete separation of religion and government".

Of course, even when they did write explicit instructions people today just ignore them. It's as if the phrasing "well-regulated" doesn't exist.

In my lifetime fag meant cigarette and gay meant happy. Likewise well regulated has taken a different meaning over the last 230 years. The SCOTUS has already answered this in Heller.

The Founding fathers were very clear on these things, today's lawmakers are just ignoring them. Both the 1st and 2nd amendments are excellent examples of this.

They also set a clear path to fix the problems of outdated amendments.

 

[BioHawk]

In my lifetime fag meant cigarette and gay meant happy. Likewise well regulated has taken a different meaning over the last 230 years. The SCOTUS has already answered this in Heller.

The Founding fathers were very clear on these things, today's lawmakers are just ignoring them. Both the 1st and 2nd amendments are excellent examples of this.

They also set a clear path to fix the problems of outdated amendments.

Hence the need for clarification. Although I'm pretty sure the term "regulated" or "to regulate" means the same thing now that it meant 250 years ago.

As for court cases, well, this Supreme Court has shown that the legal opinions of the past aren't worth the paper they are written on so what they thought in another case is irrelevant.

 

[BioHawk]

They would laugh at you. Someone would try to challenge you to a duel with pistols. Illegal of course but it happened. Another person might try and best you with a cane. A couple of them might agree with you.

The Founders were imperfect people and knew it. They did not walk in lockstep and many of the problems people have now with their work is the same things they struggled with at the time. Violence like duels and beatings actually happened. Many of those vague statements were by design and some were simply tge concessions that were made to satisfy multiple opinions.

The brilliance of the founders though is that they wrote in ability to change everything. They knew they got it wrong on the forever timeline.

I can be pretty convincing. Although they might challenge me to a duel at which point I would laugh at them and how f*****g stupid that is. Then I would show Alexander Hamilton what happened when he tried to duel somebody. He would then immediately join my side and then convince everyone else why being specific in multiple ways in the Bill of Rights is so important. And then if they still wanted to duel I would pull out a 9 mm with an expanded magazine I was able buy right before I left with no background check whatsoever and unload 29 rounds into the ground and see if they still wanted to duel.

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

Those are reasonable restrictions.

 

[Hawki97]

Those are reasonable restrictions.

 

[hydro2.0]

Those are reasonable restrictions.

Agreed