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.
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.
and we are now getting closer and closer where law abiding citizens will be criminals in the eyes of the law and it is also one more shot bringing us closer to a major split between the citizens and the government with the police and military caught in the middle. How much long will it go on until the police and military start turning on their chain of command due to unlawful orders they swore to protect and defend the US Constitution and to protect and serve?
An issue like this is all about local law enforcement, not the military.
and we are now getting closer and closer where law abiding citizens will be criminals in the eyes of the law and it is also one more shot bringing us closer to a major split between the citizens and the government with the police and military caught in the middle. How much long will it go on until the police and military start turning on their chain of command due to unlawful orders they swore to protect and defend the US Constitution and to protect and serve?
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
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.
While a trained marksman or professional speed shooter operating in controlled conditions can change a magazine in two to four seconds, App. 109, 263-67, 656, 1027, an inexperienced shooter may need eight to ten seconds to do so, App. 114.
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.
Da Fuk?