Third Circuit Upholds Magazine Law (Great Disent)

[ed bernay]

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.

The best way to address this in my opinion would be to get a case before the Supreme Court that would diminish the ability for politicians and bureaucrats to claim absolute or qualified immunity for laws/acts that get overturned as being unconstitutional.

 

[hump368]

Folks this is not Stalin Russia or Nazi Germany.. this is happening today in New Jersey.

Starting today thousands of people in New Jersey that previously bought a product, even if it was bought and owned as private property 10 or 20 years ago... will be felons.

What's next? Are they gonna tell us that we can't have Samsung microwaves (that it must be a GE brand) ?

How about light bulbs... we should not allowed to own and use "old" incandescent 100 watt bulbs.. let's have them make that make a felony too .... This is a very slippery slope.

Please, call, text, email your representative and tell them NO !!!

 

[Schipperke]

Folks this is not Stalin Russia or Nazi Germany.. this is happening today in New Jersey.

Starting today thousands of people in New Jersey that previously bought a product, even if it was bought and owned as private property 10 or 20 years ago... will be felons.

What's next? Are they gonna tell us that we can't have Samsung microwaves (that it must be a GE brand) ?

How about light bulbs... we should not allowed to own and use "old" incandescent 100 watt bulbs.. let's have them make that make a felony too .... This is a very slippery slope.

Please, call, text, email your representative and tell them NO !!!

https://www.dw.com/en/dim-future-for-halogen-lightbulbs-as-eu-ban-takes-effect/a-45287961

 

[lemmdus]

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.

When that was going on I didn't support it then because I knew darn well LEOs have NO interest in helping us peons get CCW Permits much less having the same ability as they do.

 

[lemmdus]

This is a clear violation of the US Constitution and they have NO WAY of enforcing it unless they go door to door. No these magazines will stay locked away in gun cabinets until the unlikely event SHTFan. Those of you out there that think that LEO would turn against their commanders and fight against an un-Constitutional Law are delusional. They already have an "Us vs Them" mentality and would not turn on their "brothers". They have NO interests in allowing civilians CCW permits and want to be the only ones with the guns and high capacity mags. Funny these same politicians that support the BLM are the same ones that think only LEOs should have guns. SMH.

 

[lemmdus]

Folks this is not Stalin Russia or Nazi Germany.. this is happening today in New Jersey.

Starting today thousands of people in New Jersey that previously bought a product, even if it was bought and owned as private property 10 or 20 years ago... will be felons.

What's next? Are they gonna tell us that we can't have Samsung microwaves (that it must be a GE brand) ?

How about light bulbs... we should not allowed to own and use "old" incandescent 100 watt bulbs.. let's have them make that make a felony too .... This is a very slippery slope.

Please, call, text, email your representative and tell them NO !!!

I thought the courts already ruled you can not turn people into felons by just simply changing the law. There's a legal term for it.

 

[Occam]

I thought the courts already ruled you can not turn people into felons by just simply changing the law. There's a legal term for it.

They can't make you a felon via a new law for something you did in the past (buying a standard capacity mag, for example). But that's not what's being punished, here. It's HAVING a standard capacity mag from this date forward.

You're probably thinking about ex post facto criminality. That's not what's going on here. In this case they're punishing a current and future act (possession). Sure, it's crazy. But it has to be tackled in different terms.

 

[ShafTed]

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

Fixed to reflect sad reality.

 

[CrabcakesAndFootball]

Fixed to reflect sad reality.

You're exactly right about that.

 

[krucam]

I thought the courts already ruled you can not turn people into felons by just simply changing the law. There's a legal term for it.

Ex Post Facto
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ex_post_facto

Takings Clause, how the MD Bumpstock ban is being fought...primarily addresses Federal actions but believe it was incorporated via the 14A.
http://www.progressivereform.org/perspTakings.cfm

 

[pcfixer]

Ex Post Facto
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ex_post_facto

Takings Clause, how the MD Bumpstock ban is being fought...primarily addresses Federal actions but believe it was incorporated via the 14A.
http://www.progressivereform.org/perspTakings.cfm

Yep, I think time to use Charlton Heston Law, "From My Cold Dead Hands".

 

[teratos]

Yep, I think time to use Charlton Heston Law, "From My Cold Dead Hands".

Quote of the day!!!!

 

[Doobie]

This is a clear violation of the US Constitution and they have NO WAY of enforcing it unless they go door to door. No these magazines will stay locked away in gun cabinets until the unlikely event SHTFan. Those of you out there that think that LEO would turn against their commanders and fight against an un-Constitutional Law are delusional. They already have an "Us vs Them" mentality and would not turn on their "brothers". They have NO interests in allowing civilians CCW permits and want to be the only ones with the guns and high capacity mags. Funny these same politicians that support the BLM are the same ones that think only LEOs should have guns. SMH.

That's what they want...for the mags to be locked away until people get too old and feeble to utilize them. By that time, ALL instead of some of the children will have been indoctrinated with the govt's liberal agenda. When they throw your old carcass in the ground, the mags you had locked away for SHTF will have no value to anyone and will be destroyed.

 

[ironpony]

We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately. Benjamin Franklin.

 

[teratos]

That's what they want...for the mags to be locked away until people get too old and feeble to utilize them. By that time, ALL instead of some of the children will have been indoctrinated with the govt's liberal agenda. When they throw your old carcass in the ground, the mags you had locked away for SHTF will have no value to anyone and will be destroyed.

Meh. I’m already raising my kids to enjoy the feeling of tin foil caressing their heads. I finished my 14 year old daughter’s Celtic themed AR Upper yesterday. Finishing my 17 year old son’s tomorrow. Just need to get their 80% lowers (that they did) anodized.

 

[DP12]

not to derail the thread but national reciprocity could easily pass if our side required citizens to meet the LEOSA standards for carry a firearm across stateliness but only needed to meet their own states standard for carrying within their own state. How could the politicians possibly argue that citizens need to meet a standard higher than the police/retired police. Ok rant over.

Why would 'our side' join the gun grabbers in demonstrating illiteracy when it comes to the plain meaning of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Requiring free men to meet a legislated standard before they can bear arms clearly infringes on the right. Creative thinking like this is what leads to the incremental loss of rights entirely. It's where the phrase "common sense gun laws" comes from. Please stop doing that.

 

[ed bernay]

Why would 'our side' join the gun grabbers in demonstrating illiteracy when it comes to the plain meaning of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Requiring free men to meet a legislated standard before they can bear arms clearly infringes on the right. Creative thinking like this is what leads to the incremental loss of rights entirely. It's where the phrase "common sense gun laws" comes from. Please stop doing that.

I'd say we have been incrementally losing our rights since the founding. Not that I agree with it but the concept of reciprocity itself recognizes that in most states, we currently beg permission to bear arms and that if we want to cross state lines the states have to recognize our permission slip. Realistically, do you think we will get reciprocity without some sort of training requirement? I don't. I didn't say this was the end of the fight. Its just the beginning. The only way in my view to address the arguments we seem to be losing in the courts is to mitigate the antis argument that citizens are not qualified because they are not as "well trained" as the average police officer. As I seem to recall, the first part of the second amendment reads "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...". From what I read "well regulated" at the time the 2nd amendment was written meant in good working order. Does that not mean well trained and well supplied?

 

[ed bernay]

Also if you are visiting NYC and you are at least as qualified in firearms proficiency as the average NYC police officer (which isn't hard to do), how can the NYC Mayor possibly argue that you are not qualified to carry in NYC and should be denied your 2nd amendment rights?

 

[teratos]

As I seem to recall, the first part of the second amendment reads "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...". From what I read "well regulated" at the time the 2nd amendment was written meant in good working order. Does that not mean well trained and well supplied?

It was also commonplace for laws to be written with a prefatory and operative clause. The prefatory clause was usually just one example of why the law was being written. It was intended to be read as completely separate from the operative clause. The operative clauses really the part that matters. The only part anybody needs to read is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

 

[ed bernay]

It was also commonplace for laws to be written with a prefatory and operative clause. The prefatory clause was usually just one example of why the law was being written. It was intended to be read as completely separate from the operative clause. The operative clauses really the part that matters. The only part anybody needs to read is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

I understand the difference between the prefatory and operative clause. I understand that the prefatory clause is not a restricting part of the amendment. But it does explain that the founders viewed the organized and unorganized militia as being trained to resist an oppressive government and for self defense. My comments are meant as suggesting another strategy to undermine the anti's current success in the courts. We are not going to win going from 200+ years of anti 2nd amendment laws to zero laws with one case. Didn't Alan Gura throw full auto weapons under the bus in Heller because that fight is for another day?