An Oregon judge has ruled that a voter-approved gun control law violates the state constitution. The decision on Tuesday continues to block it from taking effect and casts fresh doubt over the future of the embattled measure.

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.

  • jordanlund@lemmy.world
    58·
    7 months ago

    I agree with 99% of what you said… but I take issue with this:

    “You should look up from medical journals how many rounds from a handgun (9mm or larger) and an AR (.223 or larger) it takes to stop a full grown adult. The answer will surprise you, it’s close to 2/3’s or 66% of a handgun mag for one home invader.”

    I’d distinguish “stopping a person” from “stopping a crime”. :)

    Yes, your average drugged out perp is not going to go down easy.

    But you don’t have to put them down, you just have to get them to leave.

    Every gun owner makes a critical error one time… forgetting to put on hearing protection. ;) You do it once, you never forget. Yes, I include myself in that.

    In an enclosed space, firing once, if the person has an ounce of common sense, it will send them running.

    Source:

    https://youtu.be/MKJsu7DyCic

    • GhostCowboy76@lemmy.world
      52·
      7 months ago

      I’m not sure I understand what you’re trying to articulate here. What does sound have to do with anything? Firearms are not “noise deterrents.” And firing a warning shot is not an appropriate means of firearm safety let alone a viable option for protecting loved ones or yourself. I’d be excited to understand your point better.

      • jordanlund@lemmy.world
        25·
        7 months ago

        The sound of a gun will send people running even if you don’t shoot them. Watch the video linked at the bottom.

        • GhostCowboy76@lemmy.world
          4·
          7 months ago

          You should never blindly fire a firearm. That’s the first rule of gun safety. I’m not watching a video promoting unsafe firearm practices. You’re part of the problem if you’re promoting blind firing a gun inside your house or anywhere. Buy some firecrackers and pull a Home Alone if that’s your desired effect, not a firearm.

          Firearm Safety

          https://youtu.be/LGKkSZSv1rA?si=8goNQFuJN99ZiXtJ

          • jordanlund@lemmy.world
            14·
            7 months ago

            It wasn’t a blind fire, you’d know that if you watched the video. ;)

            3 guys kick down a door and break into a house.

            They wander into a bedroom where the homeowner is.

            Homeowner fires multiple shots.

            The three dudes shit themselves and flee in a panic.

            So, again, the number of shots needed to bring someone down isn’t necessarily the same as the number of shots needed to end an encounter, and ending the encounter is the most important part. You don’t have to drop someone, all you have to do is convince them to re-think their life choices.

            • GhostCowboy76@lemmy.world
              3·
              7 months ago

              Sooooo a firearm was a tool used to defend their home. Because the homeowner knew their target. One of four basic firearm safety rules. Huh.

              Their intention was not to “create sound.” Aren’t you proving my point? A well armed homeowner successfully defended their home? Nobody should EVER use the sounds of gunshots to deter anybody from any action. It’s irresponsible and an unsafe firearm ownership practice. Period.

              It’s people like you who jeopardize the Second Amendment Rights of responsible firearm owners all across this country.

              • jordanlund@lemmy.world
                12·
                7 months ago

                No, what I’m saying is you don’t need to shoot someone 10 times to drop them when any sane person will start to flee after the first shot.

                Focusing on “number of shots needed to drop a target” is a bogus metric. “Number of shots needed to end an encounter” is all you need.

                By the math above, homeowner would have needed 30+ shots to stop 3 intruders. They didn’t. Not even close to that. Because the three intruders fled when met with force.

                • GhostCowboy76@lemmy.world
                  3·
                  7 months ago

                  Great. You have one YouTube video to base an entire argument off of. Look of body cam footage of OIS, look up security camera footage of self defense shootings, learn something about the matter before you watch one clip on the internet before you come on here and advocate for lethal noisemakers. No duh people run from gun fire. There are also countless court cases and documented investigations where a single person continued to assault an individual after taking 40+ rounds to vital organs throughout their bodies.

                  Can you predict the future? Do you know what kind of person is going to break into your home? Is that person of a sound mind? Is that person high on some substance that takes them so far out of reality and their body it’s as if they have super human strength? The answer is you don’t know. Limiting these tools for responsible citizens endangers their lives. Again, I am for gun control. But responsible gun control that is thought out and not implemented out of fear mongering and panic voting.