Oregon’s tough voter-approved gun limits that ban large capacity magazines ruled constitutional

[Kamaji]

Oregon’s tough voter-approved gun limits that ban large capacity magazines ruled constitutional

By Associated Press   
July 16, 2023

PORTLAND, Ore. — 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.

*  *  *

Source:  https://nypost.com/2023/07/16/oregons-tough-voter-approved-gun-limits-that-ban-large-capacity-magazines-ruled-constitutional/

[Sighlass]

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.

......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.”

Can someone tell me exactly where "shall not be infringed" has "tradition of regulating uniquely dangerous features.... to protect public safety"....

The first freaking bullet is just as potentially lethal as the second, third, 500th.... there is nothing "uniquely dangerous" about having more ammo at the ready to use to defend oneself from a gang or the government.

Guns were a given for hunting, and for protection from a run away government and unruly mobs associated with that faction of government.

"Uniquely Dangerous" to me would something that is not constitutionally protected... "Uniquely Dangerous" certainly wasn't used with gun laws were first being used to keep poor blacks from protecting themselves. Why because that would admit that they were saying the gun owners were the problem, not the gun (or magazine) itself.