Full article text:
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.”
Oregon voters in November narrowly passed Measure 114, which requires residents to undergo safety training and a background check to obtain a permit to buy a gun.
The legislation also bans the sale, transfer or import of gun magazines with more than 10 rounds unless they are owned by law enforcement or a military member or were owned before the measure’s passage. Those who already own high-capacity magazines can only possess them at home or use them at a firing range, in shooting competitions or for hunting as allowed by state law after the measure takes effect.
Large capacity magazines “are not commonly used for self-defense, and are therefore not protected by the Second Amendment,” Immergut wrote. “The Second Amendment also allows governments to ensure that only law-abiding, responsible citizens keep and bear arms.”
The latest ruling in U.S. District Court is likely to be appealed, potentially moving all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Oregon measure’s fate has been carefully watched as one of the first new gun restrictions passed since the Supreme Court ruling last June.
Exempting the police from gun control laws and giving them control over the permit process isn’t gun control. It’s just funneling arms away from the vulnerable communities that need means of self defense (and are the ones usually on the receiving end of disproportionate state violence) and giving them to the communities that oppress them.
You said this far better than I did. The police should have less power over the populace, not more.
It also doesn’t make sense to then say that magazines with capacity of greater than ten rounds are not in common usage for self defense.
Presumably, a police officer should ONLY use a firearm in self defense. Unless we are just willing to say that police officers need large magazines to shoot people as punishment?
Your point is precisely why I voted against this law. Tried to argue it with some of my local friends but don’t think I changed any minds (unfortunately).