Jump to content

voyager9

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    4,811

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    20

  • Feedback

    0%

Posts posted by voyager9

  2. Posted

    The reality is it shouldn’t happen at all.  But with the Democrats trying to mimic Colorado in NY, CA, and somewhere else (AZ?) the republicans need to do something.   At the end of the day SCOTUS needs to smack it all down as unconstitutional political BS.  

    • Agree 1

  3. Posted

    2 hours ago, 1LtCAP said:

    """""""""""""

    To prevent gun violence, and to mitigate the risk of mass shootings, the State of New Jersey (“New. Jersey”) has long banned possession of large capacity ammunition magazines (“LCMs”) — firearm magazines capable of holding more than the standard number of rounds provided by the manufacturer. [emphasis added]""""""""""""""""""""

    feels like that statement of his will shoot them in the foot

    The entire statement is “interesting balancing”.  Something explicitly prohibited by Bruen.   

    • Agree 1

  4. Posted

    Quote

    If you’re in that age group and have your eye on something at the local gun shop, you’ll want to act fast. The federal government could — and probably will — choose to appeal the ruling and ask for an order staying the decision while the case is argued further. It may also take some time for NICS background check system to adjust to this new reality, so the window of actual opportunity here could be pretty short.

    How much you want to bet that the time it takes to update the NICS system is 100% equal to the time required to get a stay from the Circuit court?

    Also, it doesn’t vacate any state restrictions so you’re still F’d in NJ.  

  6. Posted

    13 hours ago, GRIZ said:

    I'm still waiting to see a crime solved by microstamping.  Google it. You won't find one. I related earlier how MDSP asked the legislature to repeal the law. Millions had been spent with zero results.

    Let’s even lower the bar.  Show me one suspect identified due to microstamping.  The whole idea of microstamping is such a snipe hunt that it would be laughable if it weren’t being pursued.   Millions to implement all the logistical, organizational, and engineering changes reduced to vapor by a $10 Dremel.  

    • Like 1
    • Agree 1

  8. Posted

    43 minutes ago, Downtownv said:

    but I bet a case – perhaps one out of Massachusetts – is coming down the line

    That case is certainly interesting beyond the 2A.  Equal protection but also the notion that the defendant was complying with his home state laws while in Mass.  

    And in other’s defense the article should have led with that case and not 80% fluff about a non-answer by the NJ AG. 

    • Agree 1

  15. Posted

    6 hours ago, 1LtCAP said:

    because it appears as if no one fights the illegal restrictions......just the results of getting caught up in the mess.

    It’s called Standing and is One of the cornerstones of the US legal system.  Basically one must show “damages” in order to challenge the law.   The State is very good at manipulating their interpretation of standing to get cases thrown out.  For example “We have an obviously unconstitutional law and despite public statements saying we were going to abuse it we have not yet enforced the law therefor nobody can show damages or claim standing”

  16. Posted

    11 minutes ago, GrumpyOldRetiree said:

    I agree, FWIW. Regardless of the outcome of a 3 judge review this case was predestined to go en banc anyway. This speeds things up by skipping the "middleman". Maybe now we can get a final, national ruling before I croak.

    I don’t understand their strategy though.  Usually they try to delay things for as long as possible.  That’s why the 9th GVR’d it back to Benitez in the first place.  Now they decide to skip a step?  Almost like they want to rule on the case before something happens. 

    • Like 1
    • Agree 1

  17. Posted

    8 hours ago, Mrs. Peel said:

    It seems some members of the very activist 9th circuit Court of Appeals are trying to play games... by skipping over what would be the "usual" next step in this case of a 3-judge panel.

    This may be a good thing in the long term.  The first time through the 3-judge panel at the 9th sided with Benitez only to have it reversed during en banc review.  This time we save time jumping right to en banc.  No point in wasting the time and money with the 3-judge panel when the 9th already knows how they’ll decide.   

    The other thing is that the 9th is between a rock and a hard place.  SCOTUS already GVR’d the case once to “reconsider under Bruen”.  Benitez’s ruling is very well reasoned in that context.   The 9th will be hard pressed to overturn without Olympic-level mental gymnastics.  

    • Like 1
    • Agree 1

  23. Posted

    1 hour ago, gleninjersey said:

    Why say it's unconstitutional and then place a stay on it?  

    Probably to avoid having CA cry to the 9th circus for an emergency stay (for the entire appeal process).  Instead by issuing his own stay it disarms CA from trying that tactic and also holds them to a timeline.  

    • Like 1
    • Informative 2
×
×
  • Create New...