Third Circuit Upholds Magazine Law (Great Disent)

There are no arguments that can persuade people whose minds are made up. Until the Supreme Court takes a case and rules that this rational basis dressed up as intermediate scrutiny isn't going to fly, this will continue.

CrabcakesAndFootball said:

https://www.nj.com/politics/index.s...lawmakers_look_to_fix_high_capacity_maga.html

This is an older article on the NJ ban that discusses the absence of an exception for off-duty LEOs (a since-eliminated "oversight"). I shared the link for the beautiful quote from a police chief wherein he states that an exception must be created for off-duty LEOs so that "they can defend themselves." That's just magnificent stuff. I hate all of this.

Click to expand...

Magazine capacity laws are ******** but wherever they are passed,
The law should apply to EVERYONE. No carve outs, no exceptions.

GlocksAndPatriots said:

No, we lose cases because the judges have no intention on doing their jobs.

Click to expand...

The judges rendered a written opinion based on the arguments presented, which is what they are supposed to do. If you have no faith in the courts why should we file cases?

Since they have supplied a written opinion, you can critique it. I have and I believe it has more to do with how the case is argued than with the courts.

SCOTUS has not stepped in to correct the lower courts. Why should we believe that they will this time around?

This is beginning to sound like https://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?139298&p=2873802#post2873802

teratos said:

VA tech was perpetrated by a 9mm and a .22. It is my understanding that most of the magazines used were 10 rounds. He racked up quite the body count at a COLLEGE. Against ADULTS. We know that magazine capacity has very little to do with body counts. Hell, I bet you could do the same thing with a pump shotgun that holds 3 as long as you had a pocket full of shells.

Click to expand...

I am not sure if you are disputing what I said or agreeing with it. I have looked through the plaintiffs opening brief and to not see anything specifically related to the VA Tech shooting.

jcutonilli said:

I am not sure if you are disputing what I said or agreeing with it. I have looked through the plaintiffs opening brief and to not see anything specifically related to the VA Tech shooting.

Click to expand...

Agreeing. The courts opinion brings up the idea that mass shootings use "high capacity magazines" and implies that their use is almost necessary. VA Tech is a glaring example of the flaw in this thinking. The shooter was by no means a "well trained" gun enthusiast, yet he was able to kill 32 and wound 17 adults. One of the higher body counts on record for a mass shooting. I think it was a big oversight.

jcutonilli said:

The judges rendered a written opinion based on the arguments presented, which is what they are supposed to do. If you have no faith in the courts why should we file cases?

Since they have supplied a written opinion, you can critique it. I have and I believe it has more to do with how the case is argued than with the courts.

SCOTUS has not stepped in to correct the lower courts. Why should we believe that they will this time around?

Click to expand...

If you honestly believe that a judge can separate his or her personal beliefs from the law and facts before them, I have some swampland to sell you. They are people after all.

And seriously, have you poured through the filings and factual record? The judges admit that the trial judge found the state’s experts were spewing bunk. That’s the result of effective cross. And something tells me the plaintiffs jumped up and down about how NJ was asking them to go into uncharted waters, and the Court still, completely inaccurately, claimed on page 1 that something like 15 states have similar laws.

People will continue to file cases because what the hell else are we supposed to do. A majority conservative panel could easily have been drawn in this case. The juice was worth the squeeze regardless of what SCOTUS does or doesn’t do.

jcutonilli said:

The judges rendered a written opinion based on the arguments presented, which is what they are supposed to do. If you have no faith in the courts why should we file cases?

Since they have supplied a written opinion, you can critique it. I have and I believe it has more to do with how the case is argued than with the courts.

SCOTUS has not stepped in to correct the lower courts. Why should we believe that they will this time around?

Click to expand...

Judges opinions are judgements that have serious repercussions. Different judges reach different opinions based on the same arguments they can't all be right. As a lay person it would seem to me the proper level of scrutiny applied to similar cases should be a slam dunk based on hundreds of years of precedent in thousands of settled cases yet what I am seeing is judges shaping scrutiny to achieve predetermined verdicts. And different judges shape scrutiny in different ways. A law is either Constitutional or it isn't and all the "inalienable rights" are equal and should be treated the same in the courts.

Aren't judges supposed to be unbiased arbitrators of the laws as enacted, right or wrong good or bad? Shouldn't judges who allow personal feelings to color their judgement be held accountable by their fellow professionals? If doctors are "protected" by the system, and LEO's by the blue line, what is protecting judges... the black line?

Why should how a case is argued have any bearing on what the facts are and what the laws say as enacted by the legislature. I know it is wishful thinking on my part but isn't it the way the system is supposed to work - laws passed - enforced by police - judged based on facts - without bias at any level; it has been a long time since I took civics but that is how I remembered it.

You always see in these cases the talk of reload times like it is some kind of safety zone. It doesn't matter if it is a 1, 5, 7, 10, 15, etc. round magazine, if the person operating the gun is competent enough they are dropping the mag when the mag is empty, not the gun. If a person has planned a crime out they are carrying multiple magazines (and most likely not within the legal capacity limit that is being pushed). When a person is defending themselves it is usually unplanned and they are typically only carrying the magazine in the firearm, or one spare. Every time capacity is reduced, it is harming the legal self defense by citizens and not planned illegal use by criminals.

Blacksmith101 said:

Judges opinions are judgements that have serious repercussions. Different judges reach different opinions based on the same arguments they can't all be right. As a lay person it would seem to me the proper level of scrutiny applied to similar cases should be a slam dunk based on hundreds of years of precedent in thousands of settled cases yet what I am seeing is judges shaping scrutiny to achieve predetermined verdicts. And different judges shape scrutiny in different ways. A law is either Constitutional or it isn't and all the "inalienable rights" are equal and should be treated the same in the courts.

Aren't judges supposed to be unbiased arbitrators of the laws as enacted, right or wrong good or bad? Shouldn't judges who allow personal feelings to color their judgement be held accountable by their fellow professionals? If doctors are "protected" by the system, and LEO's by the blue line, what is protecting judges... the black line?

Why should how a case is argued have any bearing on what the facts are and what the laws say as enacted by the legislature. I know it is wishful thinking on my part but isn't it the way the system is supposed to work - laws passed - enforced by police - judged based on facts - without bias at any level; it has been a long time since I took civics but that is how I remembered it.

Click to expand...

I don't pretend to say that judges are without bias. They clearly do have some bias and some have more bias than others. For certain areas of the law this bias does not really matter because the laws are very clear and almost any judge will come to the same conclusion. Other areas are not as clear and bias will affect the outcome. It happens more than you might think. SCOTUS can't get 9 judges to agree what the law is in over half of their cases. The 5-4 decisions in Heller and McDonald indicate that the 2A is an area that is not very clear (to judges) and is more prone to bias than other areas.

A famous case where how a case is argued changes the outcome is NY Times V Sullivan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan Sullivan sued the NY Times for libel. If you look at the case as libel law, Sullivan wins. If you look at the case as a first amendment case, the NY Times wins.

If you look at the 2A, there are two competing factors; the amendment itself and the exceptions such as public safety. Public safety is certainly one of the issues that tends to curtail most rights. 2A law also does not have very many SCOTUS rulings, so the lower courts fill in missing areas with aspects of other rights. There are lots of little traps that can be used to curtail the right, which can be seen in the various rulings.

The 2A cases are argued appropriately for a non biased court. The are poorly argued for a biased one. You can complain all you want about the court, but it is not going to change appreciably in the short term. The only real option available is to tailor the argument to the bias court.

For example the court will defer to the legislature if you introduce different data. Use the same data so the court won't defer to the legislature.

The hard part is figuring out exactly what needs to be done.

But why does SCOTUS throw the 2A cases like a hot potato but not with other enumerated rights? That is the problem. They are letting the lower courts run roughshod over the 2A. The 2A is the only one where they question what it means. All they need to do is look at all the rough drafts of the 2A. It plainly talks about the people having the right without infringement.. They trimmed it to not be verbose. As such, like people twisting the Bible to fit their wants and needs, Judges and people do the same with the 2A. They are slowly starting to do it with the others. Public Safety is used as a weapon to hit 2A people over the head. BS!!. Here is Public Safety...choke on a six sided purple thingy.

jcutonilli said:

The judges rendered a written opinion based on the arguments presented, which is what they are supposed to do. If you have no faith in the courts why should we file cases?

Since they have supplied a written opinion, you can critique it. I have and I believe it has more to do with how the case is argued than with the courts.

SCOTUS has not stepped in to correct the lower courts. Why should we believe that they will this time around?

Click to expand...

We shouldn't. I've posted before that we should stop filing cases until the Supreme Court's makeup has changed. I also approve of a civil war, as it would be the best way to bring about a reset.

jcutonilli said:

It is not really for the court to determine what "reasonably fits the State's interest in public safety". The court is there to determine if there is sufficient evidence that "reasonably fits the State's interest in public safety". It is the plaintiff's job to poke holes in their evidence. Instead of poking holes in the State's evidence they chose to provide other evidence.



The court did not simply use the legislative finding, there were correlations and anecdotes demonstrating the findings. Instead of demonstrating why these correlations and anecdotes were not causation, the plaintiffs chose to use use other correlations and anecdotes.

The State says "large capacity magazines" were present in a lot of mass shootings. While this is technically correct, it does nothing to determine if the states hypothesis is correct. The plaintiffs do not demonstrate that if the magazines in these cases were replaced with 10 round magazines the results would have been the same in almost all cases.

They present anecdotes on how changing a magazine helped a few people. IT certainly gives a hypothetical benefit. The plaintiffs did not demonstrate why these are exceptions and not the rule.

We lose these cases because they are poorly argued.

Click to expand...

Yep, I get it. Case's by judiciary are poorly worded when it comes to the "reasonably fits the State's interest in public safety." There is NO reasoning at all. There is NO line of thought process or logically thought out process. The GA's don't do that either. Just all AR style rifles are evil! Really!!

Here are a just a couple examples. Yes, It doesn't matter what size the magazine it, could be 5, 7 or 10, 20 or 30 round magazine. What is the point when one can reload it you have 50 magazine... Dah...


AR-15 in common use in judiciary... yep, they don't spell out heavy barrel contour do they?

Oh, Yes, direct impingement or gas piston debate on which one is deadly?
Interesting to hear what left wing judge would determine. They both shot 5.56 NATO ammunition.


Colt offers a piston-operated rifle. Called the LE6940P, the rifle is chambered in 5.56mm NATO and uses all standard AR-15 magazines.

he Mark IV carbine from Huldra Arms offers users an economical way to upgrade to a piston-operated carbine. These 5.56mm NATO rifles have 16-inch barrels AR-15 magazines.

Rock River Arms LAR-PDS is a 5.56mm NATO carbine adjustable gas piston and over-the-barrel spring and guide road arrangement AR-15 magazine.

"Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protections to weapons of war," Judge Robert King wrote for the court, adding that the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller explicitly excluded such coverage.

Click to expand...

Just about every firearm used today can be directly linked to a weapon of war.

The NRA estimates there are 5 million to 10 million AR-15s — one of the weapons banned under Maryland's law — in circulation in the United States for lawful purposes.

Click to expand...

So how many are still in Maryland today and how many on the street that fit NOT banned category of AR?

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/se...dministration-silenced-him-on-gun-control-law

Jack McCauley said he would have told the delegate that the banned firearms are almost never used in crimes in the state -- less than 5 percent involve them -- and that it would have no effect on mass shootings since stricter mental health protections were more important.

babalou said:

But why does SCOTUS throw the 2A cases like a hot potato but not with other enumerated rights? That is the problem. They are letting the lower courts run roughshod over the 2A. The 2A is the only one where they question what it means. All they need to do is look at all the rough drafts of the 2A. It plainly talks about the people having the right without infringement.. They trimmed it to not be verbose. As such, like people twisting the Bible to fit their wants and needs, Judges and people do the same with the 2A. They are slowly starting to do it with the others. Public Safety is used as a weapon to hit 2A people over the head. BS!!. Here is Public Safety...choke on a six sided purple thingy.

Click to expand...

The problem is that with other rights the exceptions are rare/limited. With the 2A the exceptions are not. More than 2/3 of murders are committed with a firearm. They are also used in other crimes such as rape and robbery.

I suspect that the exceptions for the other rights tend to error on the public safety side of things just like 2A issues. The curtailment of these other rights do not appear to be as bad simply because it does not happened with the regularity that public safety issues happen that affect the 2A.

Another issue is how the case gets argued. This case gets argued as its my right and the issue is not a bad as the state says. You never really here about the societal benefits because it is all about the individual right. The judge looks at the evidence and sees that there is not a strong reason why you need that particular item and there are other avenues where you can still exercise your rights. It does not appear to the judge that the right is really being infringed upon. The judge does not here the negative societal implications of what is being banned. They only the states positive spin on the societal implications. The plaintiffs also fail to argue why the state should not be the sole provider and if the state really protects individuals (limits of the states public safety obligations).

I am sure there are other issues also.

the issue

jcutonilli said:

The problem is that with other rights the exceptions are rare/limited. With the 2A the exceptions are not. More than 2/3 of murders are committed with a firearm. They are also used in other crimes such as rape and robbery.

I suspect that the exceptions for the other rights tend to error on the public safety side of things just like 2A issues. The curtailment of these other rights do not appear to be as bad simply because it does not happened with the regularity that public safety issues happen that affect the 2A.

Another issue is how the case gets argued. This case gets argued as its my right and the issue is not a bad as the state says. You never really here about the societal benefits because it is all about the individual right. The judge looks at the evidence and sees that there is not a strong reason why you need that particular item and there are other avenues where you can still exercise your rights. It does not appear to the judge that the right is really being infringed upon. The judge does not here the negative societal implications of what is being banned. They only the states positive spin on the societal implications. The plaintiffs also fail to argue why the state should not be the sole provider and if the state really protects individuals (limits of the states public safety obligations).

I am sure there are other issues also.

Click to expand...

Because they now say we are a post enlightenment Thoreau BS. We are now not heathens so we do not need the 2A That is for an older time. The gubbminbt knows better. Bah Humbug.

To me more fights and warsd are started with the 1A or speech. weapons are an ends to a means with respect to whatever. As are nitrates, bombs, cars, knives, etc. more people killed in car accidents- you know all that. I am not bitching at you, my friend but to you.

When judges and politicians choose to become domestic enemies of our constitution by supporting unconstitutional infringements and gun bans, there really needs to be some accountability and consequences.

WeaponsCollector said:

When judges and politicians choose to become domestic enemies of our constitution by supporting unconstitutional infringements and gun bans, there really needs to be some accountability and consequences.

Click to expand...

The Framers planned for that. Unfortunately, it’s the 2A.

jcutonilli said:

The problem is that with other rights the exceptions are rare/limited. With the 2A the exceptions are not. More than 2/3 of murders are committed with a firearm. They are also used in other crimes such as rape and robbery.

Click to expand...

By every estimate firearms are used by civilians prevent over an orderr magnitude more rape, robbery and murder than than committed with them.

And more than 85% of all murder is committed by prior criminals (93% in Baltimore with 81% committed by persons with ten or more arrests).

On could probably easily establish that combinations of Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth Amendment rights cause more than 2/3 of murder.

Keep in mind ALL the other rights will have many more exceptions and limits if we go along the public safety path or for that matter the path of emulating other developed democracies. It is easier to get a warrant in Australia in order to enhance public safety. You can be held for questioning with no bail for 28 days in Japan to enhance public safety. You get no jury for criminal trials in Germany and this creates a very high conviction rate which helps public safety.

In pretty much every other developed democracy being remanded as dangerous mentally ill is done under much lower probative burdens and thresholds.

And in virtually every other developed democracy double jeopardy is allowed (think Oscar Pistorius Vs. OJ Simpson outcomes). Just as massive stop and frisk is also legal in most countries.

And don't forget in the US "Progressive Era" gave us "progressive "laws upheld by SCOTUS at the time supporting severe limits on speech, for example advocating resisting the draft being an extremely severe felony.

So don't imagine our other rights are safer, gun control logic actually puts them at major risk , as they can all be shredded on the idea of public safety. For that matter why would the CDC not look at the injury cost of our strict warrant policy which lets a lot of criminals escape justice, obviously a severe public health issue since prior criminals are virtually all of violent crime commission.

Did you see the recent legislation passed in Australia regarding allowing law enforcement access encryption? They are now officially the democracy with the least digital privacy protection. That country already had the worst comparative rights of any developed democracy and it is being held up by the left in the US as the example we should follow on rights v public safety.

"Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protections to weapons of war," Judge Robert King wrote for the court, adding that the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller explicitly excluded such coverage.

Just about every firearm used today can be directly linked to a weapon of war.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Exactly, not to mention the bow and arrow. The entire "weapons of war" statement is a profoundly specious red herring.

I keep hearing the “if banning guns could save just one child then we should do it”. My response has now become “If banning immigration could save just one life of an innocent victim should we do that?” Man does it piss people off!

teratos said:

The Framers planned for that. Unfortunately, it’s the 2A.

Click to expand...

Change the ATF to BOE, Bureau of Oath Enforcement. People who take the oath need to start enforcing it so it means something.