Third Circuit Upholds Magazine Law (Great Disent)

whistlersmother · Dec 6, 2018

rbird7282 said:
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

Actually, it is in the State's interest to NOT engage in public safety - it gives the State the excuse to continue on its power grab of rights from the citizenry under the guise of "public safety". After all, if the public were safe, there would be no need to grab their rights.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

ironpony · Dec 6, 2018

It must be a terrible feeling to arrest one for exercising their Constitutional rights? If one has the power to arrest they also are not held to the same laws against the Constitution so ... no feelings known?

Just a comment, no offense meant.

IDFInfantry · Dec 6, 2018

whistlersmother said:
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

I too would not put faith in our Law Enforcement here in Maryland. Too many times they have demonstrated that they will proudly trample upon the Constitution and on your rights in order to please their chain of command. Like other LEO's have stated here on this forum. If they refuse to follow unlawful orders then they'll just find someone else to carry it out.

IDFInfantry · Dec 6, 2018

That being said this will embolden the left when they introduce the new Maryland bill banning the possession of magazines that hold 10 rounds or more. This time around it will pass! How this is enforceable is anyone's guess. At what point do we say enough is enough?

CrabcakesAndFootball · Dec 6, 2018

https://www.anjrpc.org/donations/donate.asp?id=4356

This link will allow you to donate to the lead plaintiffs in this case, who are no doubt incurring attorneys' fees at this moment seeking either en banc Third Circuit or SCOTUS review. This is a BFD.

press1280 · Dec 6, 2018

They really should look at stringing out an en banc petition. The third circuit is 6-6 GOP vs Dems but 2 seats are vacant and 1 has already been nominated.
String it out until at least one of them has been seated.

press1280 · Dec 6, 2018

IDFInfantry said:
That being said this will embolden the left when they introduce the new Maryland bill banning the possession of magazines that hold 10 rounds or more. This time around it will pass! How this is enforceable is anyone's guess. At what point do we say enough is enough?

The 7 round law didn't make it in NY with a liberal 2nd circuit, so the 4th circuit may be leery of creating a split over it.

teratos · Dec 6, 2018

whistlersmother said:
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~~ Unconsititutional 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

Fixed it for you....

jcutonilli · Dec 6, 2018

pcfixer said:
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.

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.

KIBarrister said:
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...

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.

delaware_export · Dec 6, 2018

at some point, the attempt will be to ban all magazines.

the only thing legal will be a "plug" mag, that doesn't store anything, it just fills the mag well. every gun must be a single shot.

it's all for the chill'ens.

the new gov in nevada is promising to take the state full anti in the next legislative session. strong dem majorities in both the senate and assembly.

the details are not in yet. he is talking about a full on ban of : hc mags, ars, bumpers, and silencers. (his words)

session starts in february. lets see how fun this one gets.

GlocksAndPatriots · Dec 6, 2018

No surprise here. The two judges in the majority were a black man and a Jewish woman appointed by Obama. I didn't need to see any more to know how this would turn out.

GlocksAndPatriots · Dec 6, 2018

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.

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

teratos · Dec 6, 2018

jcutonilli said:
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.

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.

CrabcakesAndFootball · Dec 6, 2018

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

I unfortunately wholeheartedly agree with this statement.

GlocksAndPatriots · Dec 6, 2018

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.

Exactly. Saying that large magazines are used in many mass shootings is like saying that most car fatalities take place with gas tanks larger than 10 gallons. It's completely irrelevant.

john_bud · Dec 6, 2018

Why doesn't the state need to prove that these infringements in the name of public safety ACTUALLY provided greater safety??

Atlasarmory · Dec 6, 2018

Wow the good news just keeps on coming here lately :sad20:

CrueChief · Dec 6, 2018

john_bud said:
Why doesn't the state need to prove that these infringements in the name of public safety ACTUALLY provided greater safety??

Because simply saying it is good enough for these "judges." They are all of the same religion and if they recite their gospel correctly all is well.

babalou · Dec 6, 2018

exactly

rbird7282 said:
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

the oncoming Minority Report

CrabcakesAndFootball · Dec 6, 2018

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.

Third Circuit Upholds Magazine Law (Great Disent)

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Peace through strength

Member

Banned

Banned

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

My hair is amazing

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Banned

Banned

My hair is amazing

Active Member

Banned

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Cocker Dad/RIP Bella

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics