Federal Judge Rules Oregon's Gun New Law Constitutional

[Kristen Sehr]

I was unsure whether to post this in News or Politics. Given how much of a political issue guns have become, I opted to post it in the Politics Section (hope that was the right call).

 

Finally some good news about better control of guns in our society that is literally awash in them (this example is from Oregon):

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/federal-judge-rules-oregon-tough-011750148.html

 

And now, the rest of the story:

 

I really had to do a double-take when I saw the article's title, because so often of late certain state legislatures and the judiciary (including the U.S. Supreme Court) have dragged us in the opposite direction. One result is the dramatic increase in gun violence across the country, including mass-causality incidents.

 

And then I read in the article who the federal judge involved in this ruling was. Karin Immergut is someone I once worked closely with (on occasion and concerning investigative matters), before she was appointed to the Federal Bench and before she had been appointed U.S. Attorney for the District of Oregon. Back When I knew her, she was a county deputy district attorney. 

 

While that has been a long time ago now, Karin impressed me as an extraordinarily intelligent woman of integrity that was truly dedicated to the pursuit of justice. She really cared about her work and the ways people were affected by it. She stood out. I know this because I witnessed it personally.

 

Knowing what I do of her, Karin's ruling about the constitutionality of Oregon's voter-approved, tough (but in my view, necessary) gun law makes perfect sense. She would not make a ruling based on political demands or expediency, but instead on precedent and the application of the law. I applaud her actions in this case.

 

Regrettably though, I can just about guarantee that Karin's ruling will be appealed, and not that it was wrong. Funded by those groups, individuals and the gun lobby without a care that more and easier legal access to firearms on the streets results in the social fabric of our country being ripped apart. And in so many more innocent people otherwise needlessly dying, like in horrific mass school shootings. It is also likely that if the opposition fails at the appellate level, they will appeal it up to the U.S. Supreme Court itself, and its conservative majority that is fully capable of reversing laws based on politics. So it does not look promising to me that Karin's ruling will survive. But it was still the right decision either way. Regardless of how it works out in the end. And who knows, maybe things will turn out okay after all? I hope so.

 

I'll go out on a limb here with an opinion that may not be shared by some here on the forum (and if you disagree, please reply and tell everyone why). And it is that, as things stand now, our society simply cannot handle all these firearms being so readily and easily available, legally and in such massively growing numbers. If society could really handle it all, then we would not see the explosion of gun violence and mass shootings taking place across the country, that some seek to blame entirely on the mentally ill. Which is a falsehood.

 

The Second Amendment was ratified back in 1791. It is past time to change it. Not necessarily in repealing it, but in providing far stronger protections for society-at-large. As Oregon's gun law attempts to do. 

 

Another falsehood is that even more firearms in the hands of the public is going to make them safer, and make all of this go away. A state trooper once told us (at a training seminar) that "An armed society is a polite society." The implication being that people will treat each other better if everybody is walking around with a gun and that deterrence will be achieved that way.

 

After everything I've seen, my response to such an argument now is: An armed society is a murderous society. And a very steep price is being paid for that. In blood.  

[awkward-yet-sweet]

I absolutely disagree.  I feel sorry for the people burdened by these anti-liberty restrictions.  I'm thankful not to live there, and I'm thankful for standard capacity magazines  of 30+ rounds and firearms of diverse designs.  I'm thankful for the heritage of freedom in this country (or at least some parts of it), that convinced my grandparents to move here.  I'm thankful to live in a very well-armed and very safe place, complete with lots of armed citizens and a thriving local Defense Force controlled by the voters of my county and not by the state....the very essence of the "well regulated militia." 

 

'm not particularly fond of guns themselves, as they are just tools like hammers or screwdrivers...but I recognize that they are necessary tools and their existence is a discomfort to the state because their primary reason for existence is opposition to the state.  To me, anything that makes the state uncomfortable is as beautiful as a rose.  God bless the memory of those who fell at Lexington and Concord, citizens who opposed the original gun grab by the British and set the standard of conduct for those who prefer liberty to the "safety" of the state. 

 

While correlation doesn't always equal causality, I find this sort of thing interesting:

https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/11/04/democrat-run-cities-counties-have-a-murder-problem-report-shows/

 

Edited July 17, 2023 by Carolyn Marie
Pejorative language describing the judget and/or the decision was removed, in keeping with the Community Rules.

[awkward-yet-sweet]

I will add that the biggest struggle I face out in public is the perceived association with stuff like this.  There is the idea that being LGBTQ+ = Democrat voter, anti-gun, pro-big government, loves high taxes, etc...  I can't describe how many times I've had to explain to people..."that isn't me."   

 

I don't worry about mass shootings.  They don't happen where I live, and are statistically rare in general.  I don't really worry about hate crimes, or even about anti-trans legislation stuff as much as I worry about being wrongly perceived as an opponent of my community's way of life, or that I represent some kind of outside threat.  That was probably the motive for my assailant last year.  I'm still recovering from the physical damage, and so this sort of thing is very personal to me.

 

I truly believe that an uncoupling of the LGBTQ+ community from the Democrat party (and from restrictive urban politics in general) would be the greatest possible step toward acceptance in most of the US.