this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2023
405 points (98.3% liked)

News

23280 readers
3434 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


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
 

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
[–] FlexibleToast 10 points 11 months ago (1 children)

That's what makes gun control such a difficult problem. People seem to forget that it is a right and those have extra weight behind them. While I want better gun control, I also don't want our rights to be easily thrown away. The fact that the idea of a constitutional amendment seems so far fetched right now should be strong enough evidence that the system, as it was designed, has failed.

[–] jordanlund 10 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Not only is it a right, but given the overall dysfunction in Washington, changing it is an impossibility.

In order to get a new Amendment off the ground, you need a 2/3rds vote in the House. 290 votes.

They can't get 290 votes to decide who their own leader should be.

They can't get 290 votes to agree to bounce George Santos.

There's ZERO hope they'd get 290 on ANY amendment, not just guns.

[–] thisisawayoflife 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

In order to get a new Amendment off the ground, you need a 2/3rds vote in the House. 290 votes.

... Or an Article V convention forced by states. I'd wager money it's going to happen in the next 25 years.

[–] jordanlund 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

Oh, we're WAYYY closer than that. I think we're only 3 or 4 states away now.

There are two problems with that though...

  1. The states calling for it are red states. They aren't going to limit gun rights, if anything they'll expand it, along with other stupid shit like banning abortion and gay rights, ban different classes of people from voting, and likely come up with some legal definition of "woke" and try to ban it too.

  2. While you can call for a convention with a 2/3rds majority of states (34/50), it takes a 3/4 majority to RATIFY the new constitution (38/50).

So, to put that in comparison... in 2020 Biden won 25 states, 1 congressional district in Nebraska, and Washington D.C. Trump won 25 states and 1 congressional district in Maine.

In order to ratify a new constitution, you need all 25 states from one side, plus 13 from the other side.

Want to restrict abortion? All 25 Trump states + 13 Biden states. Good luck with that.

Want to restrict guns? All 25 Biden states + 13 Trump states.

Take a look at the map, find me 13 red states who will agree to nullify the 2nd Amendment.

Heck, find me the guaranteed 25 Biden states.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

On the other hand, it only takes 5 judges to reinterpret the constitution...

[–] jordanlund 0 points 11 months ago

Yup, but it takes longer to get those five than you'd think.

Look at abortion, it took 50 years of continual effort to un-do that.

Sonce the 2008 gun ruling, Heller, the court has only gotten MORE conservative, not less conservative.

The next two justices to drop out will likely be Thomas and Alito as they are the two oldest at 75 and 73 respectively, so we better be damn sure we have a Democratic President in place when that happens and a Democratic Senate who won't block nominees the way McConnell did with Merrick Garland.

But let's assume we get that... the next three oldest judges are Sotomayor, Roberts and Kagan. So now we're looking at having to hold the line not just for 2 judges but for 5, or it flips back again.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 11 months ago

They will obviously never try to define "woke". At this point it was intentionally shaped into trigger word to tell their moronic voters that something is bad without having to bring any actual arguments. An actual definition would hurt this prupose.