Sativied
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the great and informative post. Measure 114, the list in the post you linked to, seems like the very least of rules that should be in place and it's shame such a small minority is set on continuing the dangerous situation. Like you said "it's a start". A major step in the right direction. You explained in the gun control is coming thread what measure 114 is not, which is aside from 'for other purposes' what it should be. It's what we call a French deal, take what you can now, try to negotiate more later. I prefer a different approach on matters like this, less compromise. What happens now is "first they wanted to control the type of guns, the amount of guns, the amount of bullets, the left clearly creeps closer to taking our guns, we need to make a stand now, we've given in enough already" and it drags on and on. Practically hard, sure, especially now everything is politicized and every issue can tip an already delicate balance. Like EU giving in to farmers on climate change, they are rewarded for their resistance especially if they show willing to fight. Next time they'll fight even harder regardless. I do not prefer democracy to appease everyone, but do what's necessary and just.It's just a matter of time before the next mass shooting occurs, probably days.
To those who are scratching their heads and wondering why the US allows this to go on, I agree with the head scratching. Witness the struggle over measure 114 in Oregon. Background on that measure is found in the links below.
https://www.rollitup.org/t/gun-control-is-coming.995611/page-56#post-17264802
Post made after the ballot first passed
We passed that measure by a very slender margin in November, 2022. Three weeks later, it was struck down by a circuit court judge (an elected office) in a rural county of 10,000 people who ruled that it infringed on the State's Constitution's section that protected the right of people to obtain arms. The measure most explicitly does not but using gun nut pretzel logic, the judge said it did.
Then, he dragged his feet before making the final ruling that finally allowed his ruling to go before higher courts. The state's Supreme Court blocked enforcing the new amendment to the Oregon State Constitution while the appeals process worked its way through the system. The judge in Harney County held that measure up in his court for as long as he could.
Delay tactics in court by right wingers. They use the courts as a weapon, not for justice. But I digress.
Finally, on January 9, 2024, one year and one month after that Harney County judge decided to defeat the will of the voters after he issued his final ruling.
Oregon judge enters the final order striking down Measure 114, a voter-approved gun control law
Harney County Circuit Court Judge Robert Raschio signed the general judgment on Monday. The judgment finalizes the opinion Raschio issued in November.www.kgw.com
And now, we may proceed to correct his error.
Measure 114 case goes before Oregon Court of Appeals as state seeks to overturn lower court ruling
State attorneys have asked the Oregon Court of Appeals to block a ruling that struck down the voter-approved gun control law.www.kgw.com
So, now the case will go before the Oregon State Supreme Court. The hearing date is not posted anywhere online as far as I can tell.
It's not a matter of if but when. When seems to be sometime next year. That's what we are up against right now. The simplest, most rational and data-driven measures to save lives from guns will take nearly three years and multiple court actions to enact into law. The next threshold to clear is implementation. Many sheriffs in Oregon are saying they will refuse to enforce this law.
Pulling from extremist playbook, Oregon sheriffs refuse to enforce gun laws
A growing list of Oregon sheriffs are telling their constituents they won’t enforce voter approved gun restrictions despite not yet knowing how some aspects of the law will work and not having a clear role in enforcing others.www.opb.org
So, here we are. We are working to enact laws that make incremental progress toward protecting people by implementing rational gun safety laws and not the complete package. More will be needed but it's a start that will save lives. It takes years to make even these marginal changes. Meanwhile people have joined with others to prevent enacting even these rational gun laws, are causing mayhem through negligence by failing to ensure the gun they bought are kept, used and maintained in a safe manner. So, I say, OK. If we can prove negligent manslaughter, let them have what they want until it hurts.
Rhetorical I assume, I don't have a roadmap for fix for the general problem. I was expressing my thoughts on the increased focused on retribution. My reference to christian justice wasn't an analogy. While probably as old as apes it's historically in the west primarily the origin, that and british monarchs. Again, I don't disagree with the parents getting punished. Pragmatically, in this specific case, maybe a few years less would save millions that could be spend on more fruitful and more fair and preventative action rather than seemingly stretch a few key principals of justice. Justice it is, but the form matters. How retribution is in balance matters. If it doesn't save lives, can it really be justice, a concept made up by people to prevent people in a society from killing each other, not some divine thing on its own that must be satisfied with retributive punishment.What else do you propose we do?
Another way to put it (I don't make light of it, but same sentiment...)
Bonding with a kid and boosting their confidence by introducing them to guns... on a homestead where you got to provide your own meat maybe... what happened to throwing that oddly shaped projectile you call football?
Head scratcher indeed. The school and mass shootings are an inherent part of the gun culture.