Go Back   Maryland Shooters > Gun Rights and Legislation > National 2A Issues
Don't Have An Account? Register Here

Join MD Shooters

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 6th, 2018, 02:07 AM #1
wolfwood wolfwood is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,082
wolfwood wolfwood is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,082
Third Circuit Upholds Magazine Law (Great Disent)

Thread title says it all. Read here.


https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/183170p.pdf
wolfwood is online now   Reply With Quote
Old December 6th, 2018, 02:15 AM #2
babalou's Avatar
babalou babalou is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Monkey County
Posts: 3,526
babalou babalou is online now
Senior Member
babalou's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Monkey County
Posts: 3,526
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!
babalou is online now   Reply With Quote
Old December 6th, 2018, 02:17 AM #3
babalou's Avatar
babalou babalou is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Monkey County
Posts: 3,526
babalou babalou is online now
Senior Member
babalou's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Monkey County
Posts: 3,526
Seems no matter the dissent, they will do what they are going to do, regardless. Smh
babalou is online now   Reply With Quote
Old December 6th, 2018, 02:41 AM #4
Occam Occam is offline
Recovering Lurker
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Montgomery County
Posts: 2,326
Occam Occam is offline
Recovering Lurker
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Montgomery County
Posts: 2,326
Hopefully the fact that the circuit court in question is subject to SCOTUS review will, someday, perhaps, maybe, get this un-f#cked.
Occam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 6th, 2018, 03:24 AM #5
fidelity's Avatar
fidelity fidelity is offline
piled higher and deeper
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frederick County
Posts: 15,890
fidelity fidelity is offline
piled higher and deeper
fidelity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frederick County
Posts: 15,890
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 ...

Quote:
Large magazines, unlike machineguns, are in common use. The ban extends to the home. Indeed, that is the main if not only locale

of the law, as New Jersey can already deny most people permits to carry large magazines publicly. See N.J. Stat. Ann. §2C:58-4(c). And the ban impairs using guns for self-defense. The government’s entire case is that smaller magazines mean more reloading. That may make guns less effective for ill—but so too for good. The government’s own police detective testi-

fied that he carries large magazines because they give him a tactical “advantage[],” since users must reload smaller magazines more often. App. 116-18. And he admitted that “law-abiding citizens in a gunfight” would also find them “advantageous.” App. 119. So the ban impairs both criminal uses and self-defense.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
__________________
Post nubes, lux
fidelity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 6th, 2018, 03:32 AM #6
jcutonilli jcutonilli is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 596
jcutonilli jcutonilli is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 596
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.
jcutonilli is online now   Reply With Quote
Old December 6th, 2018, 07:22 AM #7
pcfixer's Avatar
pcfixer pcfixer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Marylandstan
Posts: 4,285
pcfixer pcfixer is offline
Senior Member
pcfixer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Marylandstan
Posts: 4,285
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.
__________________
Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.

“By the way I call it "moral obedience" rather than "civil disobedience" because compiling with God's law can never be "disobedient". Those who try to promote un-natural laws on us are committing moral disobedience. It is our duty to resist immoral laws and actions.” By Richard Fry.
pcfixer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 6th, 2018, 08:25 AM #8
smokey0118's Avatar
smokey0118 smokey0118 is online now
2A TEACHER
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 22,492
Images: 33
smokey0118 smokey0118 is online now
2A TEACHER
smokey0118's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 22,492
Images: 33
These laws are blatantly unconstitutional on their face. Any judge that doesn't see that is not applying reason to their decision.
__________________
MSI EXECUTIVE MEMBER:

"It's hard not to be a menace to society, when half the population is happy on their knees"

Is minic a gheibhean beal oscailt diog dunta!
smokey0118 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old December 6th, 2018, 08:38 AM #9
CrabcakesAndFootball CrabcakesAndFootball is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Anne Arundel County
Posts: 269
CrabcakesAndFootball CrabcakesAndFootball is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Anne Arundel County
Posts: 269
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.
CrabcakesAndFootball is online now   Reply With Quote
Old December 6th, 2018, 08:45 AM #10
KIBarrister's Avatar
KIBarrister KIBarrister is offline
Opinionated Libertarian
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Kent Island, Maryland
Posts: 404
KIBarrister KIBarrister is offline
Opinionated Libertarian
KIBarrister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Kent Island, Maryland
Posts: 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by pcfixer View Post
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.
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...
KIBarrister is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Home Page > Forum List > Gun Rights and Legislation > National 2A Issues


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (1 members and 1 guests)
mreaston
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
© 2018, Congregate Media, LP Privacy Policy Terms of Service