Third Circuit Upholds Magazine Law (Great Disent)

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!
  • jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    By your proffered assessment, everything can be substantially related. I would like to see some other points of view. Can you think of a single right that someone cannot come up with an argument that meets intermediate scrutiny? That is the problem with the test. It makes sense with signs at liquor stores and advertisements on commercial vehicles, but not so much with fundamental rights.

    It's not my proffered assessment, it's the courts. Everything is not substantially related. Many first amendment related laws get struck down under intermediate scrutiny. Laws rarely pass strict scrutiny and rarely fail rational basis. Intermediate scrutiny is somewhere in between. The problem is that it is ill defined and can live closer to one or the other levels depending on the judge.

    I certainly believe that there is a much more substantial link to public safety compared to any of the other amendments. I think it makes it easy for judges to misapply intermediate scrutiny. The real question is how do you argue a case so that judges can believe they are applying intermediate scrutiny.

    I don't believe the cases have been argued correctly. My opinion is based on the court decisions and the denied cert petitions. While many people recognize that there is problem, I have not really seen anyone else try and understand and address the problem. I have yet to see any arguments changed to address the problem. It seems to me that people would rather stick their head in the sand and complain about the courts rather than understand the problem and craft better arguments.

    You seem to have ignored the fatal flaw in the courts argument. Guns are inanimate objects and do not actually kill people. Its the person that really does the killing. Until you stop focusing on the negative benefits and start focusing on the societal benefits, we are going to continue to loose. A gun cannot be both bad and good at the same time. The government exempts themselves because of the beneficial effects, yet says that it cannot remain in society. Why doesn't anyone point out this hypocrisy?

    Maybe there are other ways or better ways. I would like to hear them.
     

    wjackcooper

    Active Member
    Feb 9, 2011
    689
    One more

    Doubt that the Supreme Court will continue to defer (while legislators gut the Second Amendment) provided that Trump gets one more Justice appointed.

    Regards
    Jack
     

    GlocksAndPatriots

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Aug 29, 2016
    763
    By your proffered assessment, everything can be substantially related. I would like to see some other points of view. Can you think of a single right that someone cannot come up with an argument that meets intermediate scrutiny? That is the problem with the test. It makes sense with signs at liquor stores and advertisements on commercial vehicles, but not so much with fundamental rights.

    Not to mention that in other cases, the courts DO analyze the evidence to determine whether the law IS a reasonable fit to the interest. They don't just say "The legislature said so, therefore it is."
     

    Not_an_outlaw

    Ultimate Member
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 26, 2013
    4,679
    Prince Frederick, MD
    It's not my proffered assessment, it's the courts. Everything is not substantially related. Many first amendment related laws get struck down under intermediate scrutiny. Laws rarely pass strict scrutiny and rarely fail rational basis. Intermediate scrutiny is somewhere in between. The problem is that it is ill defined and can live closer to one or the other levels depending on the judge.

    I certainly believe that there is a much more substantial link to public safety compared to any of the other amendments. I think it makes it easy for judges to misapply intermediate scrutiny. The real question is how do you argue a case so that judges can believe they are applying intermediate scrutiny.

    I don't believe the cases have been argued correctly. My opinion is based on the court decisions and the denied cert petitions. While many people recognize that there is problem, I have not really seen anyone else try and understand and address the problem. I have yet to see any arguments changed to address the problem. It seems to me that people would rather stick their head in the sand and complain about the courts rather than understand the problem and craft better arguments.

    You seem to have ignored the fatal flaw in the courts argument. Guns are inanimate objects and do not actually kill people. Its the person that really does the killing. Until you stop focusing on the negative benefits and start focusing on the societal benefits, we are going to continue to loose. A gun cannot be both bad and good at the same time. The government exempts themselves because of the beneficial effects, yet says that it cannot remain in society. Why doesn't anyone point out this hypocrisy?

    Maybe there are other ways or better ways. I would like to hear them.

    I'd like to see more on your exemption idea. I think equal protection between police and citizenry can be made using your argument relating to the positive aspects of firearms. Is anyone making such a claim currently. There should be plenty of opportunities for test cases. Since the argument is different there probably would be that much case law.
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    I'd like to see more on your exemption idea. I think equal protection between police and citizenry can be made using your argument relating to the positive aspects of firearms. Is anyone making such a claim currently. There should be plenty of opportunities for test cases. Since the argument is different there probably would be that much case law.

    I would not really say that it is an equal protection argument, although it may be useful for that type of argument. Many 2A cases have tried to make an equal protection argument via the 14th amendment. They fail because the state makes a public safety argument as to why there is an exception. They do not make a corresponding public safety argument about why the public should be able to do the same thing. They make a self defense argument, but fail to realize the government does not really protect individuals. I believe the fact that the government does not protect individuals would be another useful aspect because it is a legal argument as opposed to an empirical one.

    The exemption is important to the scrutiny aspect of the 2A. The government frames the argument as guns are dangerous. The plaintiffs argue that restrictions won't really work. The problem is that you cannot fully deny the dangers posed by guns because these dangers are the same reason why they are useful. You need to demonstrate why they are useful to society. The easiest way to do this is use the exemptions against the government. The government cannot take the position that they are both useful and so dangerous that they cannot be part of society. It is hard to demonstrate that the people provide public safety if all you focus on is individual self defense.
     

    pcfixer

    Ultimate Member
    May 24, 2009
    5,947
    Marylandstan
    Rehearing en banc was denied on January 9th.

    F them...

    Clear proof in the disent!

    the government’s own police detective testified that he carries large magazines because they give him a tactical “advantage


    admitted that “lawabiding citizens in a gunfight” would also find them “advantageous.” App. 119. So the ban impairs both criminal uses and self-defense.
    The

    And we never demand evidence of how severely a law burdens or how many people it hinders before picking a tier of scrutiny. That demand is backwards and explicitly forbidden by Heller. We should read our precedent in keeping with the Supreme Court’s instructions
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,917
    Messages
    7,258,586
    Members
    33,348
    Latest member
    Eric_Hehl

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom