SCOTUS - NJ Mag Ban Vacated and Remanded

[oldguysrule649 397]

On 8/3/2022 at 11:27 PM, MartyZ said:

I'm actually not bringing back my vacationing AR mags, they are all 15 rounders.

Once the mag ban is struck down I'm going shopping.

My pistol mags are all "permanently" reduced to 10 rounds. Those will all be unshackled, just need new base plates.

As was also questioned earlier in this thread, I am of the understanding that our current mag ban challenge addresses the 10+ round law, not necessarily the earlier over 15 round ban. However even if that is the case, I anticipate eventually that will be overturned as well. 

Certainly also looking  forward to bringing  my orphaned “children “ back home from their almost four year vacation in PA. We should plan a celebration.  Perhaps a meetup where we all bring only our standard capacity magazines, lol.
 

 

[MartyZ 696]

I was under the impression that they were trying to strike the mag ban down completely.

[Ferris 78]

I'd imagine it would strike down any all bans on mags that are standard capacity and in common use. The waiting is the hardest part I just ordered a handgun and told the seller to just keep the mags because it would be cheaper and easier.

[RadioGunner 218]

If 10 is an infringement then so is 15. If it gets struck down the limits will very likely be completely gone.

[1LtCAP 4,264]

On 8/6/2022 at 11:27 AM, MartyZ said:

I was under the impression that they were trying to strike the mag ban down completely.

it would seem that that could be the only outcome now. i think they're just trying to delay and find a way around this.

[CMJeepster 2,778]

On 8/6/2022 at 11:27 AM, MartyZ said:

I was under the impression that they were trying to strike the mag ban down completely.

It's a negotiating tactic, IMO.  Shoot for the moon and settle for "standard capacity" in common use across the nation.  Personally, I don't want any restrictions.  It's not us lawful firearm owners that are the problem, it's the criminals.

[RadioGunner 218]

1 hour ago, CMJeepster said:

It's a negotiating tactic, IMO.  Shoot for the moon and settle for "standard capacity" in common use across the nation.  Personally, I don't want any restrictions.  It's not us lawful firearm owners that are the problem, it's the criminals.

The Supreme Court won’t make up an arbitrary number. They will either say yes or no. So if we win it will be no limit, not 15 (which is an infringement) or even 30. The state will have to find some historical context for 15 round magazines. Fact is they can’t. 15 is a number they pulled out of their asses many years ago. It won’t stand. 

[ESB 247]

But would 30rounds stand?  States could probably argue that there is a historic context in that number.  Basically just banning drums and other super high capacity stuff.  

[raz-0 1,259]

12 hours ago, ESB said:

But would 30rounds stand?  States could probably argue that there is a historic context in that number.  Basically just banning drums and other super high capacity stuff.  

Show me any history of capacity bans at the signing or during reformation? Or even prior to the 1990s. 

ETA: The gatling gun was invented 1862, existed pre reformation, and had magazines from 20-100 rounds. And anyone could buy them. They can still buy them. 

 

 

[RadioGunner 218]

45 minutes ago, raz-0 said:

Show me any history of capacity bans at the signing or during reformation? Or even prior to the 1990s. 

There were historical ammo restrictions but they were minimums and not maximums.

Golly gee, I hope I'm not committing a crime by being low on ammo...