405
submitted 11 months ago by ickplant@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

A voter-approved Oregon gun control law violates the state constitution, a judge ruled Tuesday, continuing to block it from taking effect and casting fresh doubt over the future of the embattled measure.

The law requires people to undergo a criminal background check and complete a gun safety training course in order to obtain a permit to buy a firearm. It also bans high-capacity magazines.

The plaintiffs in the federal case, which include the Oregon Firearms Federation, have appealed the ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The case could potentially go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

RPGs, grenades and the like fall under "destructive devices" and as such aren't covered under the 2nd Amendment. They're regulated under the firearms act of 1968.

https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/weapons-firearms/is-it-legal-own-hand-grenades

[-] neatchee@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago

Right. And I'm asking you to give me a reason for the distinction, not proof that the distinction has been made.

I know that's how the law has been interpreted up to this point. I'm asking you to explain why you believe it to be the correct interpretation

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

The reason for the distinction between firearms and "destructive devices" is the firearms act of 1968.

I think the root cause for the confusion is people forget that the agency isn't the ATF, it's the ATFE (I guess the "E" is silent? :)

Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.

Explosives are their own category, it's right there in the name.

[-] neatchee@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

No, the firearms act is the thing that distinguished. It is not itself the justification for distinguishing.

Right now all you're saying is "because that's the law". I want to know why you think that's how the ought to be

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

What I think is totally irrelevant. I'm not a lawyer or a judge. All I can tell you is the way it is, if you don't LIKE that, there is a path to change it, talk to your legislators about writing a new law.

[-] neatchee@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

but I'm asking you. You can't answer the question? Or choose not to? You think there's no value in discussing these issues and trying to get people to agree? That's how you get like-minded people elected, my dude.

Unless you're saying nothing anyone can say will ever change your opinion on this issue. Which would be an end to any and all conversation

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

I'm not answering the question because my answer literally does not matter. The facts are the facts, you can choose like them or not, but that doesn't make them not facts.

[-] neatchee@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

Got it. You literally are incapable of having your own opinions because you think they "don't matter". We have nothing more to talk about. Peace ✌️

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Oh, I HAVE opinions, I'm just not obligated to share them when doing so serves no purpose.

[-] neatchee@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

Then next time just say "no" instead of pretending like you have some winning argument for a question that's not being asked.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

So you agree that armor-piercing ammunition should not be legal, correct? It shoots from a gun, but it explodes. So it is a destructive device.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

The ATF has banned armor piercing rounds specifically for that reason, but they also have a (17 page!) document listing how, when, and why certain armor piercing rounds fall under a "sporting exception".

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/general-notice/armor-piercing-ammunition

"Specifically, the definition of “armor piercing ammunition” in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(B) provides: (B) The term “armor piercing ammunition” means— (i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper or depleted uranium; or (ii) a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile."

It would appear the ban was intended to restrict the sale of what the press hysterically called "Cop Killer Bullets" back then. Phrase was all the rage. No mention of rifle rounds, only handgun rounds, and rifle rounds would later be explicitly allowed by the ATF:

"Between 1986 and 2011, ATF received few exemption requests for armor piercing ammunition. In 1986, ATF exempted 5.56 mm (.223) SS109 and M855 “green tip” ammunition containing a steel core. Similarly, in 1992, ATF exempted .30-06 M2AP cartridges. Since 2011, however, ATF has received approximately 30 exemption requests for armor piercing ammunition. Several developments since 1992 have spurred the influx of exemption requests.

ATF understands that one of the primary factors is the increased pressure on the ammunition industry to produce suitable hunting alternatives to lead ammunition. The widespread use of lead ammunition for hunting has been linked to lead contamination in certain species that consume carrion and “gut piles” containing remnants of lead projectiles. The endangered California Condor, which scavenges on carrion, has proven particularly vulnerable to this type of lead poisoning. The impact of lead poisoning on the Condor and other species has resulted in at least one State banning the use of lead ammunition in certain environmentally sensitive areas, and has generated substantial advocacy for broader availability of non-lead ammunition. Generally, rifles are the type of firearm predominately used for hunting purposes, particularly the type of hunting conducted in sensitive environmental areas such as the California Condor range. It thus appears that rifle-based hunting is the primary driving force behind the market demand for lead-alternative ammunition made with the metals listed in section 921(a)(17)(C)."

Oh, man, I had TOTALLY not considered that angle. Yeah, as states ban lead ammunition, that's going to spur development of alternatives which would ordinarily fall under the armor piercing definition unless they are granted a sporting exception.

I wonder if the "straight wall" ammo requirements had a similar impact?

https://www.remington.com/big-green-blog/what-states-can-you-hunt-with-a-straight-all-cartridge.html

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

I asked if you agreed, not what the ATF did.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

My opinion has no weight, it doesn't matter what my opinion is. The ATF did what they're going to do.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

Weird, then, that you're fine giving it when you haven't been asked for it.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Reporting to the uneducated the way this stuff actually works isn't an opinion, it's a teachable moment.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

That in itself sounds like an opinion. Maybe you don't know what an opinion is?

this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2023
405 points (100.0% liked)

News

23207 readers
2758 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS