Jump to content

FedUpWithNJ

Members
  • Content Count

    60
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    N/A

Community Reputation

17 Good

About FedUpWithNJ

  • Rank
    NJGF Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Well then it's win-win. You make money if you're right, and get to carry if you are wrong.
  2. Note that the ANJRPC in it's briefs uses the term "standard capacity" while their opponents use "large capacity" in all their filings. It's entertaining.
  3. I repeated myself - the first version wasn't intended to go out. As I said in the second version, I am not arguing that the standard of scrutiny (strict, intermediate, rational basis) should not be the same regardless of the right, but whether strict scrutiny itself means the same thing when applied to burdening all rights. At least historically, it could be argued that it has not.
  4. Yes, he did. I am not questioning whether the level of scrutiny should be the same for all constitutional rights (strict vs intermediate or rational basis) , but whether strict scrutiny itself means the same thing for all rights. Prima facie to me at least, the argument that strict scrutiny is the same standard regardless of whether it is the 1st, 2nd or 20th amendment, is at least historically inaccurate, even if we believe it should be the case going forwards.
  5. Even if they grant en banc review, and even if the majority agrees with Bibas (which they should), I would still caution against too much optimism. Bibas, in summarizing his dissent: There's a lot of room for NJ to come back and buttress their case with stronger evidence that magazine limits reduce gun violence. It may be that such evidence is still fairly weak (I would suspect so), but the problem with the 2nd amendment relative to, say, the 1st, is that we already accept considerable restrictions on our right to bear arms, whereas free speech is almost unfettered, limited only in corner cases like shouting fire in a crowded theater. It's easy in a first amendment case to say whether the government has met its burden of proof; it almost certainly has not. But I have no right to keep and bear rocket launchers. Or automatic weapons. Or sawn-off shotguns. Or missile launchers. Or mortars. Or even to concealed carry (although this may change). And none of those restrictions are necessarily grounded in the kind of evidence Bibas is calling for. So what does strict scrutiny mean for the 2nd amendment?
  6. Ok. You originally said "his main argument discredits every sub argument of the majority opinion". If by "discredit" you mean "render moot" then I agree.
  7. Ok, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Whether the law violates 2nd, 5th or 14th amendments are disjoint questions - it can violate one without violating the others. That doesn't have to be the case, but one of the things about the constitution I find beautiful is that the enumerated rights are all pretty orthogonal to one another.
  8. He pretty much focuses 100% on the second amendment and the level of "scrutiny" required to burden our rights there. It's true the same level applies to the other rights, but he didn't argue that the standard wasn't met.
  9. I hear what you are saying, but I don't see how 2nd amendment violation implies 5th or 14th in this case. The 5th is particularly easy to carve out in my opinion. If you can sell or modify your mags, then they didn't take anything away from you, regardless of whether the ban violates your 2nd amendment rights. That said, it occurred to me that Bibas may have had a constructive reason for not addressing the 5th and 14th arguments: neither of those help us if we win. If ANJRPC prevail on the 14th, all Trenton will do is amend the act so it no longer exempts retired LEOs. Who is going to charge a retired LEO with possession of a 15 round mag? Another LEO? There's a reason you never see cops in court on speeding tickets. And on the 5th, they'll just offer to buy all the 15 round mags off us. At a (generous) 20 bucks a pop, even if they have to purchase 10 million of them, that's less than the state's unfunded pension liabilities grow by over a long weekend.
  10. So if ANJRPC had argued that the mag ban violated the establishment clause and Bibas didn't address the majority's dissent to that argument, you would claim the mag ban violates religious freedom? (yeah, I know, for some of us it really does, but I don't think any court will agree with us)
  11. I don't agree that "his main argument discredits every sub argument of the majority opinion". ANJRPC argued three constitutional violations: 2nd, 5th (taking) and 14th (equal protection) amendment violations. It's true they only have to prevail on one of them to win their case, but it's not true that prevailing on one of them means they automatically establish the other two. Since Bibas only dissents on the 2nd amendment argument, his opinion has nothing to say about the 5th or 14th amendment arguments. And given how contentious 2nd amendment cases are, you can be confident he would have used the 5th or 14th amendment arguments first if he felt there was an obvious flaw in the majority's reasoning there.
  12. They deem it not to be a taking because you had other options: modify or sell your mags. Bibas doesn't dissent from the majority on this.
  13. I was basing it on this timeline: Rereading, the "denial of injunctive relief" does not refer to the preliminary injunction but to the appeal itself. So en banc review could result in anything - you're right. Edit: actually, it's still unclear. The "denial of injunctive relief" does refer to the preliminary injunction: "For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the order denying Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction." So if the en banc review overturns this, can it do more than grant the motion for preliminary injunction? (IANAL) Edit 2: Reading the actual opinions, Bibas (the good guy) says this in his dissent: So here at least injunction " until New Jersey provides real evidence to satisfy its burden of proving the Act constitu-tional" is the contemplated remedy, not more.
  14. Not even back to 15. They're asking for en banc review of the 3-panel decision to deny preliminary injunctive relief from the original ban. The original case is still proceeding in the district court. So if en banc review is granted, and if the original decision is overturned, then an injunction will be granted until such time as the district case is decided. You'll be able to possess 15 round mags until that case is done. If it is decided in the negative (which is almost certain - this is NJ), then another injunction will need to be applied for until the appeal is heard, otherwise you'll have to do again whatever you did on Kristallnacht v1 (December 10).
  15. Trump should offer all Democrat appointees early retirement. They've requested en banc as of today. En blanc may take a little longer
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information