Brickbat: Gunned Down
The Oregon Court of Appeals ruled that Measure 114, a gun control law approved by voters in November 2022, does not violate the state constitution, overturning a lower court's decision that had blocked it. This law aims to reduce gun violence by requiring permits to buy guns and banning magazines holding more than 10 rounds. The appeals court said it fits with Oregon's history of reasonable gun rules. Plaintiffs vowed to appeal the decision to the Oregon Supreme Court. In a separate federal case, a judge also upheld the law, saying it does not violate the Second Amendment. The plaintiffs in that case also plan to appeal.
The post Brickbat: Gunned Down appeared first on Reason.com.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
10 hours ago
- Newsweek
How Veteran's Benefits Are Impacted by Trump's Tax Bill: What to Know
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. President Donald Trump's legislative agenda continues to reshape federal spending, with House Republicans proposing a $453 billion bill for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in fiscal year 2026. While the bill preserves core benefit increases for veterans, it introduces a series of controversial provisions that could change how some services are accessed and funded. The new spending proposals, part of the One Big Beautiful Bill passed by the House in May, come amid a flurry of changes at the VA, including staffing cuts at the department, which have sparked protests across the nation. Why It Matters Veterans' programs have historically received bipartisan support and consistent funding increases. Trump's proposed budget continues that trend, with an $83 billion boost over the prior year, largely for mandatory medical care and benefits payouts. However, the bill's inclusion of policy items tied to reproductive health, firearm access, and vaccine mandates could limit or reshape access to VA services. What to Know The VA budget includes: A 22 percent—$83 billion—overall funding increase , with nearly all new funding earmarked for medical care and mandatory benefits like disability payments. , with nearly all new funding earmarked for medical care and mandatory benefits like disability payments. Discretionary program funding up by 4 percent , rising to approximately $134 billion. , rising to approximately $134 billion. $2.5 billion for the VA's Electronic Health Record Modernization program , doubling the prior year's allocation but still $1 billion short of the White House's ask. , doubling the prior year's allocation but still $1 billion short of the White House's ask. $18 billion in military construction funding, which includes $830 million for child development centers and barracks improvements. Policy changes include: A ban on abortion services and abortion-related counseling at VA facilities, unless the life of the mother is in danger. at VA facilities, unless the life of the mother is in danger. Ending the requirement for mandatory COVID-19 vaccination for VA health personnel. for VA health personnel. Restrictions on reporting veterans deemed financially incompetent to the national gun background check system, which Republicans have framed as a defense of Second Amendment rights. Democrats criticized the latter provisions. Florida Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a Democrat, said in a statement the bill "needlessly fixates on keeping guns in the hands of those who are potentially a danger to themselves or others, and restricts reproductive rights." A stock image shows a U.S. flag patch on a soldier's uniform. A stock image shows a U.S. flag patch on a soldier's uniform. GETTY What People Are Saying House Appropriations Committee chairman Tom Cole said the bill "honors our commitment to those who've worn America's uniform and supports our military and their loved ones." "By providing critical funding for military bases and improving housing for our troops and their families, we are ensuring that our national defense needs are met both at home and abroad. We are also upholding our pledge to our veterans. This bill fully funds health care and benefits for those who have honorably served. They upheld their sacred oath to us—and now a grateful nation is keeping our promise to them. Today marks the start of our process and our work to fund the government. As this bill moves forward and considerations are made and debated, the pillars of the proposal won't change." Florida Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz said in a statement: "This bill needlessly fixates on keeping guns in the hands of those who are potentially a danger to themselves or others, and restricts reproductive rights, and [includes] other cruel and pointless policy restrictions. I cannot tell those currently serving and those who defended our nation that this is the best we can do." What's Next The bill faces a tougher showdown in the Senate than it did in the House, where Democratic opposition and the filibuster rule will require bipartisan cooperation in order for it to pass.
Yahoo
19 hours ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court leaves in place District of Columbia's gun restriction on large magazines
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday left in place a longstanding gun restriction in the District of Columbia that bans magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, opting once again to avoid taking up a new gun rights case. The court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority that generally favors gun rights, turned away a challenge to the Washington, D.C., law just a few days after rejecting an appeal over a similar law in Rhode Island. Then, the court also left in place Maryland's ban on assault-style weapons including the AR-15 semiautomatic rifle. Follow live politics coverage here The court expanded gun rights in a major 2022 ruling that found for the first time that the right to bear arms under the Constitution's Second Amendment extends outside the home. But the court has since frustrated gun owners by declining to take up cases that would expand upon that ruling. The District of Columbia has long been a legal battleground over gun restrictions. The Supreme Court's landmark 2008 ruling that for the first time found that people have an individual right to bear arms in self defense in their homes arose from a challenge to a D.C. law. In the latest case, four gun owners challenged the restriction on large-capacity magazines that was enacted in the aftermath of the 2008 Supreme Court ruling, saying the restriction is unlawful under the later 2022 decision. Both a federal judge and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the law. The appeals court, in a 2-1 vote, said in a ruling last year that although large-capacity magazines are arms under the Second Amendment and have been in common use for years, they can be regulated because they are "particularly dangerous." Last summer, the Supreme Court sidestepped multiple gun-related disputes soon after it issued a ruling that upheld a federal law that prohibits people subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms. In other action on pending appeals Friday, the court decided against taking up a significant election case involving mail-in ballots in the battleground state of Pennsylvania that pitted Republicans against Democrats. The decision leaves intact a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling that said voters who send mail-in ballots that are flagged as defective can then file a separate provision in-person ballot. The Republican National Committee was seeking to overturn the 2024 state court decision, while the Democratic National Committee was defending it. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
US Supreme Court rebuffs challenge to Washington, DC's high-capacity gun magazine ban
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Friday to hear a challenge to the legality of a restriction imposed by Washington, D.C., on large-capacity ammunition magazines in a case that gives the justices a chance to further expand gun rights. The justices turned away an appeal by four men who challenged the law of a lower court's ruling that upheld the Democratic-governed city's ban on virtually all ammunition-feeding devices holding more than 10 rounds. The lower court rejected arguments that the measure violates the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms."
