Oregon Court Halts Mag Ban - from OFF

[brw2]

How does a ballot measure that amends the constitution come under constitutional scrutiny? That is a non sequitur.


Yes, but the US Constitution limits the powers of the federal government (theoretically) and reserves powers not specifically granted to the federal government to the states or the people (10th Amendment). So, if a change is made to the state constitution by initiative with respect to a power not granted to the federal government by the US Constitution, e.g. health care, there is no federal restraint on such a change. Hence, the will of the majority applies, does it not?

I am talking about the US Constitution, not individual State Constitutions.

The US constitution grants powers and also limits powers. 2A is an enumerated limitation, and therefore falls under the purview of the Federal government. It cannot be usurped by the States, no matter how hard they try, as evidenced by recent SCOTUS rulings.

 

[Provincial]

How does a ballot measure that amends the constitution come under constitutional scrutiny? That is a non sequitur.


Yes, but the US Constitution limits the powers of the federal government (theoretically) and reserves powers not specifically granted to the federal government to the states or the people (10th Amendment). So, if a change is made to the state constitution by initiative with respect to a power not granted to the federal government by the US Constitution, e.g. health care, there is no federal restraint on such a change. Hence, the will of the majority applies, does it not?

14th Amendment, Section 1: ...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;...

 

[Cavedweller]

14th Amendment, Section 1: ...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;...

So how does this apply to the 2 state constitutional amendments just passed?

I am talking about the US Constitution, not individual State Constitutions.

The US constitution grants powers and also limits powers. 2A is an enumerated limitation, and therefore falls under the purview of the Federal government. It cannot be usurped by the States, no matter how hard they try, as evidenced by recent SCOTUS rulings.

OK. But the discussion you inserted your comment into was about the 2 amendments to the state constitution just passed in the last election, which had nothing to do with the 2A. BM 114 was not a constitutional amendment. Hence my reply to your post.

 

[Provincial]

"So how does this apply to the 2 state constitutional amendments just passed?"

I defer to Judge Benitez and Judge Raschio for the answers to that. Both seem to have a good grasp of the constitutionally of the mag capacity bans, and Judge Raschio seems to understand about the rest of the BM.

 

[Cavedweller]

"So how does this apply to the 2 state constitutional amendments just passed?"

I defer to Judge Benitez and Judge Raschio for the answers to that. Both seem to have a good grasp of the constitutionally of the mag capacity bans, and Judge Raschio seems to understand about the rest of the BM.

I think there's a bit of miscommunication here. There was a bit of side discussion on initiative amendments to the Oregon Constitution (posts 15 and 71-74) that were not specifically related to the mag ban or BM 114 (health care as a human right and minimum wage for inmate labor). That's what I was referring to.

 

[brw2]

So how does this apply to the 2 state constitutional amendments just passed?


OK. But the discussion you inserted your comment into was about the 2 amendments to the state constitution just passed in the last election, which had nothing to do with the 2A. BM 114 was not a constitutional amendment. Hence my reply to your post.

This thread is about BM114, so I was referring to that. The two OR Constitutional amendments are subjects for different threads.

 

[Cavedweller]

This thread is about BM114, so I was referring to that. The two OR Constitutional amendments are subjects for different threads.

It was a bit of a side bar, to which you interjected. You might want to go back and review posts 71-74. But never mind, it's not that important. We are not in disagreement on the fundamentals. No need to clog up the thread any further.

 

[lcb97269]

I do not understand why one would want to let crooks have illegal firearms and magazines with 15-30 rounds but impose bans on law abiding citizens to only carry 10 rounds--since they are the potential victims?

"Stupidity" is the one word answer to your question. Change politicians minds by banning their armed security details. Let them do like the common folks and learn to defend themselves, maybe with pickle balls.