Eris wrote: Fri Dec 23, 2022 3:15 pm

highdesert wrote: Fri Dec 23, 2022 11:31 am Thanks for the reminder, time to watch the original "Lord of the Rings" again over this weekend, I have them all on DVD including "The Hobbit". Caught a glimpse of the new series "Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power" on Amazon, it's been Hollywoodized and it isn't even close to Michael Jackson's original series in terms or quality and acting. I grew up in the era when Tolkien was appreciated, I didn't grow up in the Harry Potter era.

Ah yes, Michael Jackson's movies perfectly captured things like Gandalf moonwalking on the Bridge of Khazad Dum.

LO fn L!

featureless wrote: Fri Dec 23, 2022 4:14 pm

Eris wrote: Fri Dec 23, 2022 3:15 pm

highdesert wrote: Fri Dec 23, 2022 11:31 am Thanks for the reminder, time to watch the original "Lord of the Rings" again over this weekend, I have them all on DVD including "The Hobbit". Caught a glimpse of the new series "Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power" on Amazon, it's been Hollywoodized and it isn't even close to Michael Jackson's original series in terms or quality and acting. I grew up in the era when Tolkien was appreciated, I didn't grow up in the Harry Potter era.

Ah yes, Michael Jackson's movies perfectly captured things like Gandalf moonwalking on the Bridge of Khazad Dum.

LO fn L!

"You shall not sass!"

CDFingers

CDFingers wrote: Fri Dec 23, 2022 4:16 pm

featureless wrote: Fri Dec 23, 2022 4:14 pm

Eris wrote: Fri Dec 23, 2022 3:15 pm

highdesert wrote: Fri Dec 23, 2022 11:31 am Thanks for the reminder, time to watch the original "Lord of the Rings" again over this weekend, I have them all on DVD including "The Hobbit". Caught a glimpse of the new series "Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power" on Amazon, it's been Hollywoodized and it isn't even close to Michael Jackson's original series in terms or quality and acting. I grew up in the era when Tolkien was appreciated, I didn't grow up in the Harry Potter era.

Ah yes, Michael Jackson's movies perfectly captured things like Gandalf moonwalking on the Bridge of Khazad Dum.

LO fn L!

"You shall not sass!"

CDFingers

Peter Jackson not Michael, wow not enough caffeine this morning.

A federal judge has ruled Oregon’s voter-approved gun control measure – one of the toughest in the nation – is constitutional. U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut ruled that banning large capacity magazines and requiring a permit to purchase a gun falls in line with “the nation’s history and tradition of regulating uniquely dangerous features of weapons and firearms to protect public safety," Oregon Public Broadcasting reported.

The decision comes after a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision on the Second Amendment that has upended gun laws across the country, dividing judges and sowing confusion over what firearm restrictions can remain on the books. It changed the test that lower courts had long used for evaluating challenges to firearm restrictions, telling judges that gun laws must be consistent with the “historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Oregon voters in November narrowly passed Measure 114, which requires residents to undergo safety training and a background check to obtain a permit to buy a gun.

The legislation also bans the sale, transfer or import of gun magazines with more than 10 rounds unless they are owned by law enforcement or a military member or were owned before the measure’s passage. Those who already own high-capacity magazines can only possess them at home or use them at a firing range, in shooting competitions or for hunting as allowed by state law after the measure takes effect.

Large capacity magazines “are not commonly used for self-defense, and are therefore not protected by the Second Amendment,” Immergut wrote. “The Second Amendment also allows governments to ensure that only law-abiding, responsible citizens keep and bear arms.” The latest ruling in U.S. District Court is likely to be appealed, potentially moving all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Oregon measure’s fate has been carefully watched as one of the first new gun restrictions passed since the Supreme Court ruling last June.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/fed ... -101316238

The judge is a Trump appointee.

The judge is on pretty solid grounds when it comes to magazines but the permitting process while clearly supported by evidence is definitely racist.

Unfortunately the whole “historical tradition of firearm regulation” in the US has been racist including fairly recent examples such as the Mulford Act.

The earliest example of a "hicap" magazine was the 1907 Savage that held ten rounds. While it was marketed to civilians as a primarily self defense handgun it was developed for the US Army and only marketed to the civilian side after failing to secure the military contract. It's not until the run up to WWII that we see any other examples and again it is only in the Military contract with the FN Browning P-35 Grand Puissance. Even when we enter the era of the Wonder Nines are their many other examples and once again the development was initially for Military rather than civilian contracts and again many were single stack fairly low capacity magazines. The Smith & Wesson model 39 was developed for the mid 1950s Service Pistol Trials and only held eight rounds. It was almost twenty years later when S&W developed the 59, again at the request of the Navy and it was a double stack and was supposed to use the same magazine as the HiPower.

Unfortunately if the courts do look at the “historical tradition of firearm regulation” they can find a very broad range of there being a tradition of limiting and licensing firearms. To hunt you need a license. To hunt there are limited seasons and limits on quantity. In many if not most states Hunters are also required to take a Hunters Safety course. There are limits on what calibers of rifles may be used as well as limits on the number of shot gun shells that can be held in the magazines. There is a very long history of laws prohibiting firing or even carrying firearms in certain areas.

If the standard remains “historical tradition of firearm regulation” then judges will have absolutely no problem citing examples. And if the rulings can be supported by cites from the “historical tradition of firearm regulation” they will be hard to overturn.

Heller does not protect arms for self defense. Heller protects arms in common use for lawful purposes. Magazines are certainly arms and there is no history and tradition of limiting such. The Miller decision protects arms useful for militia service. Standard capacity magazines are in common use for lawful purposes and useful for militia service. Bad ruling on fabricated jurisprudence.

Agree, a questionable decision that will get appealed to the 9th Circuit. After the 9th Circuit en banc rulings were reversed by SCOTUS post Bruen, wonder how they will rule on this case.

Plaintiffs on a lawsuit that claims Oregon voter-approved gun control measure is unconstitutional have filed an intent to appeal a federal judge's ruling against them. The ruling by U.S. District Judge Karin J. Immergut found Ballot Measure 114 is constitutional. The 122-page opinion noted that gun control provisions limiting magazine capacity align with other U.S. restrictions “regulating uniquely dangerous features” of guns to “protect public safety.” The gun safety law, narrowly approved by voters in November 2022, established permit-to-purchase rules and a ban on the sale and transfer of high-capacity magazines.

https://kval.com/news/local/plaintiffs- ... easure-114

The Firearms Policy Coalition and the Second Amendment Foundation gave notice of appeal to the 9th Circuit. And then we'll see what happens.

Whether one feels that capacity limits are legally justifiable or not, the Constitution is clear - there's no hunting in the Second Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms has never been predicated on subsistence or recreation. Its sole legal justification is on the grounds of collective self defense.

That said, there is a great deal of historical precedent for states regulating who may keep and bear arms - women, slaves, and indigenous peoples need not apply.

wings wrote: Tue Jul 18, 2023 6:53 pm That said, there is a great deal of historical precedent for states regulating who may keep and bear arms - women, slaves, and indigenous peoples need not apply.

Yes. And all ruled unconstitutional. To use those laws to justify current gun laws is opening Pandora's box. Sometimes, the Dems are just absolute fools.

Measure 114 won with 50.6% of the vote, 49.4% voted against it. Measure 114 won in 6 counties, 30 counties voted against it. The six counties that passed it are Multnomah (Portland), Lane (Eugene), Washington, Hood River, Lincoln and Benton.
https://www.oregon-demographics.com/cou ... population

Again, precedent. The 2A only applied to the Federal government when enacted, not to the states - their own constitutions regulated gun rights, with radically different interpretations between, say, Kentucky vs. Tennessee. Then the 14th came along and opened the current can of beans.

The Supreme Court has been reluctant to tell states that the 14th means that their own state constitutions cannot regulate their own state legislation on guns owned, carried, or used in those states. States Rights, you know. Where they are on much safer ground legally is in restricting federal level gun restrictions, and even then Congress happily spat in their eye when they overturned federal 'gun free' zones, using the 'interstate commerce' clause.

Ironically, I think there's a better legal case to be made for the Second Amendment protecting arms that are in current use by the military than weapons for hunting or competition. Again with the militia clause. But militias have always been organized at the state level, which brings us back around to the original problem.

No offense to the lawyers, but that's a sucky line of work.

highdesert wrote: Wed Jul 19, 2023 6:43 am Measure 114 won with 50.6% of the vote, 49.4% voted against it. Measure 114 won in 6 counties, 30 counties voted against it. The six counties that passed it are Multnomah (Portland), Lane (Eugene), Washington, Hood River, Lincoln and Benton.
https://www.oregon-demographics.com/cou ... population

I wonder what other constitutionally cited right can be infringed with this narrow of a majority.