OREGON narrowly passed Measure 114...

[Metal god]

I’d like to ask a question about two separate cases on same law one Fed the other State .

If Fed court rules opposite a state court then the state case appeals to the point it needs to appeal to the Federal court . Does the original Fed judge take over resulting in there original decision become the new ruling or does a new Federal judge/case continue? If so could there actually be two fed cases out of same state against same law with one judge saying it’s constitutional while the other says it’s unconstitutional ?

[Stiofan]

Judge Completely Blocks Oregon’s Restrictive Gun Law

"The judge determined that the law’s heightened background check requirement could not be implemented while the court continues to debate the other portions of the law, according to Oregon Public Broadcasting, as plaintiffs argue the law violates the state’s constitution."

[Koda94]

Oregon gun sales are thru the roof right now.
My impression is the average wait time for a completed BGC is about 30+ days, roughly. (they have to resubmit the BGC after 30 days IIRC).
The judge keeps putting the new law on hold until the permit to purchase system is in place, rightly so... since the law provided no such system or funding for such system. In fact, (IIRC), the law put a cap on the cost of the purchase permit at $65... which requires live fire training, plus includes a BGC just to get the permit. On top of the usual BGC to buy a gun. The permit to purchase is shall issue.

Yes, Im from Oregon.
Hopefully everyone else is following this because if this law is ruled constitutional this will be the precedence for the rest of the country unless SCOTUS overturns it.

Theres a magazine capacity limit included in the law too. Everythings on hold, for now.

[Stiofan]

Right now it's in state court and being challenged as violating the state constitution. I don't know how strong the gun rights are in the Oregon constitution.

[Tom Servo]

I don't know how strong the gun rights are in the Oregon constitution.

Article 1, Section 27:

The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power.

In State v. Kessler, the state Supreme Court found:

Our historical analysis of Article I, section 27, indicates that the drafters intended "arms" to include the hand-carried weapons commonly used by individuals for personal defense.

All well and good, until we get to this:

These advanced weapons of modern warfare have never been intended for personal possession and protection. When the constitutional drafters referred to an individual's "right to bear arms," the arms used by the militia and for personal protection were basically the same weapons. Modern weapons used exclusively by the military are not "arms" which are commonly possessed by individuals for defense, therefore, the term "arms" in the constitution does not include such weapons.

So it's a mixed bag and something of a conflict between the state constitution and local precedent.

[cdoc42]

"Modern weapons used exclusively by the military are not "arms" which are commonly possessed by individuals for defense, therefore, the term "arms" in the constitution does not include such weapons."

Just a thought: what are individuals defending? In the case of a controlled border policy, the defense may be personal. In the case of border control deterioration and foreign invasion, there could be a call of arms to the general population to defend the country (i.e., Ukraine, as an example). The exclusion of weapons typically used by the military would jeopardize the safety and ability to defend the country.

As well, when automobiles were first driven, were the speed limits coincident with the potentially dangerous speed produced by the car? As cars became more powerful and highways improved, were the speed limits increased? I believe Montana's speed limits are higher than those in Pennsylvania. Did the founding fathers have the ability to foresee this?

"These advanced weapons of modern warfare have never been intended for personal possession and protection." That is an opinion with no basis in fact. There is no reason they can't be possessed. But, if it was true, it seems to represent an argument that anyone using these weapons for unlawful purposes should be prosecuted, therefore a new law calling for total abandonment is unnecessary.

[Aguila Blanca]

^^^ This ignores the point that AR-15s are NOT M16s or M4s. The small, portable arms carried by the military have "the switch." The superficially similar (sort of, maybe) small arms we serfs are (sometimes) allowed to own do NOT have "the switch."

Apples and oranges.

[44 AMP]

Modern weapons used exclusively by the military are not "arms" which are commonly possessed by individuals for defense, therefore, the term "arms" in the constitution does not include such weapons.

Actually I have to commend the accuracy of that opinion. And, I would have no real problem with it being strictly adhered to.

Problem is, Oregon isn't doing that. They are doing something else and its much, much more.

Going by the stated opinion, and allowing the stated assumption to stand, that military arms are not "commonly possessed", etc. then the state is entirely within its authority to regulate possession of military arms.

However what the new Oregon law is regulating are not (as AB pointed out) "military arms" and so do not fall under the quoted ruling which allows military arms to be regulated because they aren't specifically protected by the Oregon constitution.

Part of the law is restricting arms that resemble military arms (in some aspect) but are NOT military arms, and other parts of the law are restricting ALL ARMS sales by requiring a both training and a permit which currently do not exist, prior to allowing the sale.

Trampling the rights of some to "protect" the many is one of the fundamental aspects of tyranny. Doesn't matter which group of people are the "some", define them by biology, religion, ethnicity, politics, or what property they own, or any other identifier, the result is the same. Tyranny in the name of public safety is still tyranny.

[zukiphile]

The reasoning deployed by the OR Sup Ct four decades ago hasn't aged well.

These advanced weapons of modern warfare have never been intended for personal possession and protection. When the constitutional drafters referred to an individual's "right to bear arms," the arms used by the militia and for personal protection were basically the same weapons. Modern weapons used exclusively by the military are not "arms" which are commonly possessed by individuals for defense, therefore, the term "arms" in the constitution does not include such weapons.

Emphasis added.

The form of that argument is the same as its more familiar internet form: When the 2d Am. was written, there were only flintlocks. Therefore, only flintlocks are protected by it.

That reasoning has been specifically rejected since in Heller and Bruen.

We have already recognized in Heller at least one way in
which the Second Amendment’s historically fixed meaning
applies to new circumstances: Its reference to “arms” does
not apply “only [to] those arms in existence in the 18th century.” 554 U. S., at 582. “Just as the First Amendment
protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth
Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second
Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that
constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” Ibid. (citations omitted).
Thus, even though the Second Amendment’s definition of
“arms” is fixed according to its historical understanding,
that general definition covers modern instruments that facilitate armed self-defense. Cf. Caetano v. Massachusetts,
577 U. S. 411, 411–412 (2016) (per curiam) (stun guns).

Decision in Bruen at p.19.

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

^^^ This ignores the point that AR-15s are NOT M16s or M4s.

That's beyond any reasonable dispute, but the court in Oregon cleverly anticipated your wielding a nettlesome fact by inserting "basically" into its weapons classification scheme.


If history matters, we have to acknowledge that before the NFA, there was no difference between a rifle held by a civilian and a military rifle. A G98 that can shoot through a french helmet and a 1903 that could shoot through a german helmet both made excellent rifles for civilian use, and people weren't so well off that they'd ignore the value.

The government itself created the civilian/military dichotomy well after adoption of the 2d and 14th amendments, so it shouldn't be bootstrapped into some kind of inherent difference with a "basically", a verbal wave of the hand, and a conclusion that the most popular arms themselves are bannable as unsuitable for all the civilians who thought they were suitable enough to buy.