Third Circuit Upholds Magazine Law (Great Disent)
- Thread starter wolfwood
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Where the eff they come up with it does not severely burdon The 2A?! Da fuk?! Should not burden at all, not slightly, not a lot, not severely. How is this crap happening? It seems to getting to a point, my friend. Thanks for posting this. Judiciary Run amok!
Hopefully the fact that the circuit court in question is subject to SCOTUS review will, someday, perhaps, maybe, get this un-f#cked.
Very nice. Hope Judge Bibas is on one of Trump's lists for promotion. His 19 page dissent starts after the 43 page majority opinion.
One argument that he makes (beyond inappropriate scrutiny or inappropriate use of balancing acts) is that NJ already severely restricts the ability of citizens to carry firearms in public, so most standard capacity magazines are used for self defense at home (there was already a 15-rd mag limit before this new law). Then he notes how the majority was making a supposition that by forcing use of even smaller capacity mags, it means that a mass shooter will pause long enough to enable people to escape or fight back - he makes a strong point that this is something unproven and just speculated. However if accepted as accurate he argues, then doesn't this put someone defending their life or lives of family members at a disadvantage too, in that they might become vulnerable to being shot if they have small capacity mags (and one can envision that unlike a home invader that has pre-planned, the person in the home is reacting and perhaps getting to just the gun with one mag loaded). If this is the case, he states isn't it undermining one of the core reasons for the 2A - for self defense by individuals? He later makes the point that if they can arbitrarily limit to 10 rds, what stops them from even going down to single-shot mags.
Here is one excerpt ...
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
One argument that he makes (beyond inappropriate scrutiny or inappropriate use of balancing acts) is that NJ already severely restricts the ability of citizens to carry firearms in public, so most standard capacity magazines are used for self defense at home (there was already a 15-rd mag limit before this new law). Then he notes how the majority was making a supposition that by forcing use of even smaller capacity mags, it means that a mass shooter will pause long enough to enable people to escape or fight back - he makes a strong point that this is something unproven and just speculated. However if accepted as accurate he argues, then doesn't this put someone defending their life or lives of family members at a disadvantage too, in that they might become vulnerable to being shot if they have small capacity mags (and one can envision that unlike a home invader that has pre-planned, the person in the home is reacting and perhaps getting to just the gun with one mag loaded). If this is the case, he states isn't it undermining one of the core reasons for the 2A - for self defense by individuals? He later makes the point that if they can arbitrarily limit to 10 rds, what stops them from even going down to single-shot mags.
Here is one excerpt ...
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
jcutonilli
Ultimate Member
- Mar 28, 2013
- 2,474
It is a preliminary injunction. The reasons listed are essentially the same as the other cases. I doubt SCOTUS will review the denial of this preliminary injunction.
pcfixer
Ultimate Member
Here is the rub. Why in all these findings of burdening the second amendment the courts and judges never ever fully explain and justify what "reasonably fits the State’s interest in public safety" really means.
How does it reasonably fit and need a full explaining of public safety burden the Bill of Rights.
I am not safe due to any of the finding's written in this brief.
How does it reasonably fit and need a full explaining of public safety burden the Bill of Rights.
I am not safe due to any of the finding's written in this brief.
smokey
2A TEACHER
- Jan 31, 2008
- 31,494
These laws are blatantly unconstitutional on their face. Any judge that doesn't see that is not applying reason to their decision.
CrabcakesAndFootball
Active Member
- Jun 14, 2017
- 697
This is a grave situation. This is the first circuit court to sanction a ban on possession of mags (although the court itself clearly had no idea that was the case).
As others have pointed out, SCOTUS is unlikely to get involved at the preliminary injunction stage. Our only immediate hope is that the lawyers convince SCOTUS that a circuit split exists between the 3rd and 9th, but I think it’s unlikely given the preliminary posture of these cases.
In short, thousands of law-abiding, tax paying Americans are about to begin a life of crime so shill politicos can pledge fealty to Bloomberg et al.
As others have pointed out, SCOTUS is unlikely to get involved at the preliminary injunction stage. Our only immediate hope is that the lawyers convince SCOTUS that a circuit split exists between the 3rd and 9th, but I think it’s unlikely given the preliminary posture of these cases.
In short, thousands of law-abiding, tax paying Americans are about to begin a life of crime so shill politicos can pledge fealty to Bloomberg et al.
The bill is always preceded by a statement from the legislature saying that they (the legislature) find that it will further the states interest in public safety. When the courts don’t want to get involved they just point to that legislative finding throw up their hands...
and we are now getting closer and closer where law abiding citizens will be criminals in the eyes of the law and it is also one more shot bringing us closer to a major split between the citizens and the government with the police and military caught in the middle. How much long will it go on until the police and military start turning on their chain of command due to unlawful orders they swore to protect and defend the US Constitution and to protect and serve?
An issue like this is all about local law enforcement, not the military.
pcfixer
Ultimate Member
yes it is about county Sheriff and the county State Police.
Sheriff authority in the 'people' of the county where the State Police LT of the county. State's authority by Col. William M. Pallozzi.
whistlersmother
Peace through strength
You're funny. LE will not turn against the chain of command. As has been demonstrated by LE on this very board, they will enforce lawful orders. Stop trying to have your wet dream of the police somehow ignoring the law. LE is not the friend of the 2A.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
Upton Sinclair
Granted, not many of them are as willing to go public with their sentiments, but you might be underestimating at least a few head LEOs in some some jurisdictions:
http://mynorthwest.com/1188416/republic-2nd-amendment-sanctuary-city/?
krucam
Ultimate Member
Da Fuk?
I wonder if the court is aware that the Florida high school murderer used only 10-round mags.
I’m tired of hearing about “the State’s interest in public safety”. It seems like I t’s nothing but an excuse to restrict our rights at every turn.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I’m a self proclaimed slow, average shot, old man and I can change a mag in under 2 seconds. Where do they come up with this stuff? Lol
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest posts
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
MD DNR Outdoor Recreation Survey -- Outdoorsman Responses Needed (8 Viewers)
- Started by Derwood
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
-
-
-