Third Circuit Upholds Magazine Law (Great Disent)

IX-3 · Dec 10, 2018

ed bernay said:
"Maybe I missed it but I didn’t see anything in either link regarding shotguns or patrol rifle recertification."

Neither did I. From what I read online (don't know how true it is), NYC police recruits shoot 5 rounds though an AR15 in the academy. That's it and they never receive anymore training on the AR15 yet they are exempt from the NY SAFE Act.

"Wow...I can’t believe how few rounds are required for recertification. The Philly one isn’t too bad but NY only requiring 50 rounds is ridiculous."

I believe NYC is 50 rounds, twice a year, hitting the target 38 out of 50 times. So hitting the target 76 out of 100 rounds annually. This doesn't seem to qualify anyone as a gunfighter yet we are told we are not qualified to carry a gun.

Ah, I missed where it said semi-annual on my first read through. I just saw it when I checked again.

GlocksAndPatriots · Dec 10, 2018

ed bernay said:
This X a thousand. This BS would never pass without the support of police organizations and police brass. The lives of retired police and off duty police are no more or less valuable then the non uniformed citizen. In my opinion, its a blatant violation of equal protection. Politicians exempt police because they know their unconstitutional laws would not pass unless the enforcers were exempt. While I see a few police officers vocal about protecting the 2nd amendment for all Americans, it seems to me the majority are silent or indifferent because the laws don't effect them.

The fallback argument for liberal politicians, liberal judges and police brass is that police are highly trained. What amount of range hours does the average police officer receive in firearms training in the academy and then annual training after the academy? I'm not talking about the annual or semi annual requalification which typically is shooting at stationary targets for a total of 100-120 rounds a year. What AR15 or tactical training in addition to that target practice? Heck I try to shoot 200-250 rounds a month at the range. Since I moved to PA, I also try to take at least one class each year. From what I read the average police officer doesn't receive much, if any training, on an AR15 or tactical training yet the average police officer is exempt from the NY SAFE Act for example. This is complete BS. I wish our side would outline police training and LEOSA standards for the average police officer in court filings. This NJ case the judges mention police training as to why they are exempt from the mag bans but there isn't an actual evaluation of the training. Police departments own third party evaluations admit their training is lacking yet they still get exempt from these laws. Please see for yourself. These are the latest publicly available examples I could find.

https://www.phila.gov/pac/PDF/iao2004.pdf

http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/public_information/RAND_FirearmEvaluation.pdf

They did outline the military v LEO thing in the California case, which the state just argued "The law doesn't have to be perfect."

1time · Dec 10, 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

Especially because the 2nd was written in case the state became too interested...

press1280 · Dec 10, 2018

ironpony said:
Is there any other state have laws which exempt their LEOs? Need to see the frame work for a firearm law that applies to everyone!
Laws should apply to all. How can we vote a person into an office who has never been held to the same standards?

NJ exempts retired LEO from having to show "justifiable need" to get a carry permit. There's probably a number of other ones too.
I'd bet things would be a lot different if they weren't always exempt.

ed bernay · Dec 10, 2018

GlocksAndPatriots said:
They did outline the military v LEO thing in the California case, which the state just argued "The law doesn't have to be perfect."

Unless I missed it, our side didn't describe the training that average and retired LEOS receive in NJ. This allowed the judges to easily claim that the police received training and are special. It would have been much harder for the liberal judges to dismiss if the police training and requalification was clearly shown to be just adequate enough to meet the legal standard but that's it. What's also important is that the average non gun owner can see what the average police officer's firearms training and requalification really is. Couple that with Castle Rock v Gonzalez, and I bet a lot more non gun owners will see the light.

CrabcakesAndFootball · Dec 10, 2018

This spirited discussion of facts and logic is based on the erroneous presumption that the other side of this debate is acting in good faith, which it is not.

CrueChief · Dec 10, 2018

There is no doubt laws would look much different if there wasn't a carve out for "government agents" of all and any stripes.

teratos · Dec 10, 2018

ed bernay said:
Unless I missed it, our side didn't describe the training that average and retired LEOS receive in NJ. This allowed the judges to easily claim that the police received training and are special. It would have been much harder for the liberal judges to dismiss if the police training and requalification was clearly shown to be just adequate enough to meet the legal standard but that's it. What's also important is that the average non gun owner can see what the average police officer's firearms training and requalification really is. Couple that with Castle Rock v Gonzalez, and I bet a lot more non gun owners will see the light.

They don't care.

ironpony · Dec 10, 2018

Would removing .gov entities from such laws constitute tyranny?

jcutonilli · Dec 10, 2018

GlocksAndPatriots said:
They did outline the military v LEO thing in the California case, which the state just argued "The law doesn't have to be perfect."

But it should be consistent, which it is not. If there truly is not any benefit to "large capacity magazines" then why does the government insist on having them. That is a fact that cannot be disputed, yet it is not really argued that way.

It gets argued as a retired law enforcement vs the people. The problem is that who really provides public safety is never challenged. It is assumed that only the government provides it. Yet the government always says it is not responsible for individual safety. Another fact that cannot be disputed, yet is not really argued that way.

rambling_one · Dec 10, 2018

When LEAA pushed LEOSA, many civilians including me poured a substantial amount of money into the effort, swallowing the organization’s pledge that once law enforcement got national carry LEAA would work diligently on our behalf. It NEVER did. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. National reciprocity - I’ll believe it when I see it.

ed bernay · Dec 10, 2018

teratos said:
They don't care.

Some may not care. How many Liberals do you think protest, vote for anti 2nd amendment politicians and donate to anti 2nd amendment groups because they think well trained police are there to protect them and their children while every non uniformed gun owner is some inbred redneck? I bet its a lot. I don't think its because they don't care. I think they are kept ignorant because of a combination of an agenda driven liberal media, power hungry politicians, intellectual laziness, and Liberal hubris. Appeal to authority fallacy is being used to attack our rights and it should be called out in the media and in court cases. I doubt as many people would be against 2nd amendment rights if they knew that our courts stated that individuals were not guaranteed police protection, even when threatened specifically, and that the average police officer didn't receive as much firearms training as portrayed by politicians.

GlocksAndPatriots · Dec 10, 2018

ed bernay said:
Unless I missed it, our side didn't describe the training that average and retired LEOS receive in NJ. This allowed the judges to easily claim that the police received training and are special. It would have been much harder for the liberal judges to dismiss if the police training and requalification was clearly shown to be just adequate enough to meet the legal standard but that's it. What's also important is that the average non gun owner can see what the average police officer's firearms training and requalification really is. Couple that with Castle Rock v Gonzalez, and I bet a lot more non gun owners will see the light.

My point is that this was dismissed in California. The judges don't need a good reason. They just do whatever they want.

GlocksAndPatriots · Dec 10, 2018

CrabcakesAndFootball said:
This spirited discussion of facts and logic is based on the erroneous presumption that the other side of this debate is acting in good faith, which it is not.

Exactly. There's no type or degree of argument that will cause Obongo/Klinton judges to rule in our favor. Period.

ed bernay · Dec 10, 2018

GlocksAndPatriots said:
My point is that this was dismissed in California. The judges don't need a good reason. They just do whatever they want.

I don't disagree with you there. I'm just saying that if our side spells out the training that the average police officer receives and we have a plaintiff that has trained more and spells out their training in the filing, it will be a lot harder for the judges to wave their hand and dismiss us outright. They will have to address in writing how the average police officers semi annual/annual 78/100 round passing requalification is superior and deserving of semi auto rifles/+10 magazines to a plaintiff that has taken tactical classes, rifle classes, concealed carry classes etc. The judges may find another excuse but let's not make it easy on them. If we lose, publicize it so the non gun owning public is aware of what police training includes and how politicians and judges are misleading them. I don't disagree with you that intellectually dishonest liberal judges are screwing our 2nd amendment rights.

ironpony · Dec 10, 2018

The people wanting these laws glance right over the .gov exemptions. They probably don’t even know the full law, knee jerk feel good reaction remember.

ironpony · Dec 10, 2018

I never thought they would legalize pot and / criminalize firearms. Both will/are happening.

CrabcakesAndFootball · Dec 11, 2018

Thousands of otherwise law-abiding, tax-paying residents of the State of New Jersey woke up this morning as criminals, as the ban went into effect today. I've submitted a New Jersey public info request for all documents sufficient to identify the number of magazines surrendered. I will post the response if interesting.

dgtaurus · Dec 12, 2018

The thing that bothers me most about these laws is that they are strictly for politicians to have a feather in their cap. When they go for re-election they can say “I voted for a magazine ban”. This only serves them. They simply do not care who it harms and the fact that they make law abiding citizens into criminals. Magazine restrictions have to be the absolute dumbest anti 2A argument they have. These politicians are criminals and conmen. Disgusting.

CrabcakesAndFootball · Dec 12, 2018

That's exactly right. Facts and logic need not apply because Bloomberg has spoken.

Third Circuit Upholds Magazine Law (Great Disent)

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Active Member

Banned

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Active Member

Cocker Dad/RIP Bella

My hair is amazing

Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Banned

Banned

Active Member

Member

Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics