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
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    10 months ago

    This law had nothing to do with background checks. Oregon and federal law already require background checks.

    This required a special permit to purchase a gun which is not allowed.

      • Tayb@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        10 months ago

        Nope! You can buy a tank online. Probably will set you back about as much as a new Ferrari for a restored Cold War example, but no permit required.

          • SheeEttin@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            10 months ago

            No, but you can probably apply to the ATF for a destructive device registration if you make its gun operational.

            I think you also need to do the same for each shell. I know you have to do this for grenade launchers, I’m assuming it’s the same for tank shells (especially exploding rounds, not sure about non-exploding).

        • neatchee@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          Got it. So as long as I can carry it, I should never need a permit. RPGs? Stinger missiles? Or does it have to use bullets?

          And can you give me any logical reason to make that distinction other than “those are the words in the Constitution”?