How can states think they can do this?

[chipbennett]

Most people did not take an oath to defend the Constitution, or even know what is in it. In the last presidential election, many voted for Trump as the lesser of 2 evils; others voted for Biden as the lesser of 2 evils.

Anyone who voted for Biden as "the lesser of two evils" is too stupid to tie their own shoelaces.

 

[bgcatty]

Oregon needs to vote Portland out of their state.

Just like Illinois needs to vote Chicago out of Illinois!

 

[Nunya]

I'm no lawyer, but I feel that, once the Supreme Court issues a ruling that protects the 2nd Amendment and states that "Shall Issue" is the new requirement, this sort of thing shouldn't even make it out of the gate. For the lawyers here, how can they even think they'll win this one?

Oregon voters to decide on one of the nation's strictest gun control proposals

A measure on Oregon's November ballot will allow voters to decide whether people wanting to purchase a gun will first have to qualify for a permit.

www.latimes.com

I'm also not an attorney, but here's the deal: A court can issue whatever orders they wish; however, unless they have the wherewithal to enforce those orders is based upon who wishes to enforce them. Courts have no authority on their own, they must enlist help of the executive branch to enforce their orders, whether on a state or a federal level. Look back on Andrew Jackson's desire to move the Cherokee from GA to OK--The Supreme Court said he could not do it and it was illegal. His response? "Enforce your own order" and he did it anyway. Now, while I cannot place myself in the situation 200 years ago, the truth was Jackson enforced the fact that there are 3 EQUAL branches of government, whether you agree with him or not. We are not to be run by unelected "knowitall's" in robes, that's not who we are; however, the courts must have enforcement provided for them by someone else.

 

[04FXSTS]

Just a thought but the USSC ruling on 2A has been publicized to the point pretty much everyone that reads or watches news has heard about the ruling. If someone is arrested for an unconstitutional law would that also open the arresting officers to a 1983 type lawsuit?
I remember the process of Illinois getting their CCW law because I was there then. Unlike the USSC ruling that took effect immediately the judge in that case gave the state a date they had to have something in place that would be in line with the ruling. To clarify, the lawsuit did not ask for CC but for CARRY outside the home either open or concealed.
There was a lot of controversy over what would happen if no acceptable law was approved. Many gun rights supporters including myself said "Don't pass a law, let's see how that works out." Many of us believed without a law in place prohibiting carry outside the home any carry would be acceptable. We never got to find out because a law was passed just before the deadline. Jim.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I'm no lawyer, but I feel that, once the Supreme Court issues a ruling that protects the 2nd Amendment and states that "Shall Issue" is the new requirement, this sort of thing shouldn't even make it out of the gate. For the lawyers here, how can they even think they'll win this one?

Oregon voters to decide on one of the nation's strictest gun control proposals

A measure on Oregon's November ballot will allow voters to decide whether people wanting to purchase a gun will first have to qualify for a permit.

www.latimes.com

INGO reading assignment: at least two books about the Reconstruction, and then report back and I shall issue further assignments.

It will be years to get the Neo-Confederates in NY and CA back to respecting the Constitution.

 

[JAL]

Per the Oregon law, one thing I've never understood: how are these various restrictions (high cap mags and 'assault' weapons bans), when they grandfather-in existing owners, not found unconstitutional on their face, as they divide Americans into classes, as to who can and cannot own a particular physical item, even though both parties are in the same jurisdictional area.

I'm not saying it well, but for instance, If they ban pistol braces, but grandfather in existing owners, they're saying that it's OK for existing-owner Joe to possess it, but not for Betty to have one, even though they may be neighbors.

I understand that grandfathering-in for pistol braces is not their current scheme, just using it as an example.

.

It avoids the Fifth Amendment's "Takings" Clause which applies to states via the Fourteenth Amendment - evading having to compensate everyone for all the weapons seizures - and the countless, endless court cases that would result from owners claiming the compensation isn't fair and just. This is why they use the "Buy Back" (misnomer) method for voluntary forfeiture.

John

 

[JTClark]

No document (constitution), no legal ruling is sufficient to keep liberty for a bunch of people intent on giving it away.

People have the rights and liberty they are willing and capable of defending for their self. No more.

 

[JAL]

I'm no lawyer, but I feel that, once the Supreme Court issues a ruling that protects the 2nd Amendment and states that "Shall Issue" is the new requirement, this sort of thing shouldn't even make it out of the gate. For the lawyers here, how can they even think they'll win this one?

Oregon voters to decide on one of the nation's strictest gun control proposals

A measure on Oregon's November ballot will allow voters to decide whether people wanting to purchase a gun will first have to qualify for a permit.

www.latimes.com

States and their legislatures, or via Referendum (legislature puts it on general ballot), or via Proposition (a proposed law placed on general ballot by voter petition) can enact any law they want to, even if it's blatantly unconstitutional at state or federal level. Congress can do the same thing. There is, justifiably under the Separation of Powers doctrine, nothing to stop them from doing so. To wit, New York's flurry of firearm control laws, enacted in a toddler tantrum response immediately after the NYSRPA v Bruen Decision.

If it is believed to be unconstitutional, it behooves someone with that belief, and with standing before a court with jurisdiction, to challenge its constitutionality. That typically requires Big Bucks which is why governments often believe they can get away with it.

John