Federal judge rules Oregon’s tough new gun law is constitutional

[Into the Night]

And the current SCOTUS ruling says this is absolutely constitutional. They don't know the constitution. And they certainly don't understand precedent. The judges ruling is completely consistent with Heller.

SCOTUS has no authority to change the Constitution either, and this is NOT in line with current SCOTUS thinking.

 

[Into the Night]

Like you have a fucking idea what you are spewing!

She does. You keep going back to this mindless chant.

 

[Into the Night]

Be fun to have an atomic bomb.

It is legal to own one. You are responsible for that weapon, just like any weapon.

 

[Into the Night]

Good ruling, gun owners will now have what they wanted, a trip to the Supreme Court.
As for Oregon, thank God, Portland is officially a safe city.

Death Of A City: The Portland Story?

Just like Chicago.

Bans on guns and limits on guns do not work. It is also unconstitutional.

 

[Into the Night]

Many states already have gun laws restricting assault weapons, magazines, and similar regulations. The courts have never ruled those regulations are unconstitutional.

No court has authority to change the Constitution, dumbass.
Such laws are unconstitutional.

And you are wrong. The Supreme Court finally decided to adhere to the Constitution and strike down such bans.

Define 'assault weapon'.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

About time that a judge actually understands the second amendment. No one here seem to have the foggiest idea.

I expect every federal judge understands it better than you do.......

 

[Into the Night]

This is the first gun law to be challenged since the Court's ruling last June.

They are restricting magazines with more than 10 rounds so the fact that other states may have rules in place is irrelevant as none of them have come to the Court yet.

It's doubtful the Court will uphold this law given their previous stance on this issue.

This law has many flaws also.

You can have more than 10 rounds if you are in the military or law enforcement, if you are in your home....other things.

That is not equal and fair treatment.

It is my opinion that the Court will strike this down.

They are required to, if they want to adhere to the Constitution.

 

[Into the Night]

It was beginning to be clear in the 80's that the courts are not going to protect our Constitutional rights.....anyone at this point who still expects that has not been paying attention.

YOU protect your rights. That responsibility is YOURS.
The Constitution does not give rights. That is not it's purpose.

 

[Into the Night]

I expect every federal judge understands it better than you do.......

Some don't.

 

[RB 60]

Be fun to have an atomic bomb.

How would you maintain it and how/why would you use it? Would you use it on Republicans?

 

[Tinkerpeach]

SCOTUS has no authority to change the Constitution either, and this is NOT in line with current SCOTUS thinking.

They don't change it, they interpret it.

 

[Lightbringer]

How would you maintain it and how/why would you use it? Would you use it on Republicans?

Not to mention the fact that the atomic bomb isn't protected by the 2nd Amendment. You can't discriminate between targets with one of those bad boys.

 

[martin]

How would you maintain it and how/why would you use it? Would you use it on Republicans?

I think I'd just keep it in the backyard for the kids to play with.

 

[martin]

It is legal to own one. You are responsible for that weapon, just like any weapon.

He's referencing an atomic bomb, and giving a sample of the thinking found exclusively on the Right.

 

[Lightbringer]

It is legal to own one. You are responsible for that weapon, just like any weapon.

No it's not.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

A federal judge has ruled Oregon’s voter-approved gun control measure – one of the toughest in the nation – is constitutional.

U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut ruled that banning large capacity magazines and requiring a permit to purchase a gun falls in line with “the nation’s history and tradition of regulating uniquely dangerous features of weapons and firearms to protect public safety," Oregon Public Broadcasting reported.

The decision comes after a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision on the Second Amendment that has upended gun laws across the country, dividing judges and sowing confusion over what firearm restrictions can remain on the books. It changed the test that lower courts had long used for evaluating challenges to firearm restrictions, telling judges that gun laws must be consistent with the “historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

https://news.yahoo.com/federal-judge-rules-oregon-tough-011750148.html

I totally agree with the large magazine ban.

Not quite sure about the permit to buy a sporting weapon, though.
One doesn't need a permit to buy golf clubs or fishing tackle.

 

[Concart]

I totally agree with the large magazine ban.

Not quite sure about the permit to buy a sporting weapon, though.
One doesn't need a permit to buy golf clubs or fishing tackle.

Unless you’re Bob Barker a golf club isn’t likely to hurt anything other than your pride.

 

[Concart]

He's referencing an atomic bomb, and giving a sample of the thinking found exclusively on the Right.

If you can’t hold it it is not covered by the Constitution. If it’s considered unusual it is not protected by the 2nd. Heller made that clear. A high capacity clip falls under the dangerous and usual clause in Heller. Wouldn’t it be ironic if this SCOTUS overruled Scalia?

 

[RB 60]

I think I'd just keep it in the backyard for the kids to play with.

Yeah, it's millennials who go on school shooting sprees anyway...

 

[RB 60]

He's referencing an atomic bomb, and giving a sample of the thinking found exclusively on the Right.

Are you saying those on the left don't own guns? What is this "sample of the thinking found exclusively on the Right" you're referring to?