Judge Benitez

[1LtCAP 4,264]

54 minutes ago, GrumpyOldRetiree said:

If I'm not mistaken, the ANJRPC et al have a mag ban case pending somewhere, but the fight against the carry killer bill is getting all the attention for now.

i would be happy to hear that. it should be an easy fight in light of bruen.

 my statement that you quoted.....i would LOVE to be wrong, and hope i am. i just keep seeing all of these illegal restrictions that it seems to me could be easily fought, considering that they're going against federal law..........

On 9/24/2023 at 8:02 AM, GrumpyOldRetiree said:

I'm  looking forward to calling back my standard capacity magazines out of exile in South Carolina!

same. mine aren't that far away though. big question is whether or not that gets us to true standard(30 round) or just our slightly less restricted 15?

[voyager9 3,434]

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”

[Scorpio64 5,156]

3 hours ago, voyager9 said:

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”

Based on the above, wouldn't the state's own pet charge of "constructive intent" apply.  Even though the law has not been tested, it still exists.

[45Doll 5,877]

His decision has been stayed. And get this:

This injunction lasted for one week, in what became known to gun owners in the state as "freedom week," when California residents were allowed to purchase magazines of any capacity. From March 29th through April 5th, California residents purchased approximately 8 million magazines...

The emphasis was mine.

9th Circuit Court Stays Lower Court Ruling Banning 'High' Capacity Magazines in California – RedState

[Ferris 78]

4 minutes ago, 45Doll said:

His decision has been stayed. And get this:

This injunction lasted for one week, in what became known to gun owners in the state as "freedom week," when California residents were allowed to purchase magazines of any capacity. From March 29th through April 5th, California residents purchased approximately 8 million magazines...

The emphasis was mine.

9th Circuit Court Stays Lower Court Ruling Banning 'High' Capacity Magazines in California – RedState

I'll never understand how NJ was able to pull off the mag ban and not grandfather existing mags. It basically violates the takings clause, even California wasn't as bad as NJ.

[CMJeepster 2,778]

13 hours ago, Ferris said:

I'll never understand how NJ was able to pull off the mag ban and not grandfather existing mags. It basically violates the takings clause, even California wasn't as bad as NJ.

Because they said so and few stood up to the tyranny.

[ESB 247]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/court-stays-ruling-on-california-s-ban-on-high-capacity-magazines/ar-AA1iaKwp

"The liberal majority on the court wrote that “public interest tips in the favor of a stay” because “mass shootings nearly always involve large-capacity magazines.”

 

Are these judges idiots?  Do they not know about Bruen or read what the Supreme Court has said?  Courts are no longer allowed to use the 2 step approach and can't use means-ends for 2A cases.  WTF?  

 "In the years since, the Courts of Appeals have coalesced around a "two-step" framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach. . . .  Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one step too many. Step one of the predominant framework is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment's text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support applying means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Instead, the government must affirmatively prove that its firearms regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms."

[JackDaWack 2,895]

Might make it easier now to request an emergency appeal to the SCOTUS. 

[voyager9 3,434]

16 hours ago, ESB said:

Are these judges idiots?  Do they not know about Bruen or read what the Supreme Court has said?  Courts are no longer allowed to use the 2 step approach and can't use means-ends for 2A cases.  WTF?  

Good video that the en banc opinion is completely unfounded

[drjjpdc 39]

On 9/28/2023 at 10:09 PM, Mrs. Peel said:

Yikes, things are getting very interesting with this Duncan v. Bonta case. 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 is apparently a very unorthodox move, and they are getting publicly criticized by some of their own judges for this obviously politicized gamesmanship.

This Four Boxes Diner video explains better than I can:

SHOCKING 2A NEWS IN DUNCAN v. BONTA: Federal Judges ATTACK Ninth Circuit for Being UNFAIR - YouTube

Even better is Benitez slapping the same opinion on Miller v Bonta.

[silverado427 10,730]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/hard-see-9th-circuit-manage-201027004.html

[raz-0 1,259]

On 10/12/2023 at 9:25 AM, CMJeepster said:

Because they said so and few stood up to the tyranny.

It went to court. The court said there was no taking because they weren't taken and the notion of you being deprived of the benefit of your property was fantasy. It was a bullshit ruling, but a ruling it was. People tried to fight it, but gun grabber judges plus interestbalancing means we lost. It got GVRed back down after Bruen. 

[ESB 247]

22 hours ago, raz-0 said:

The court said there was no taking because they weren't taken and the notion of you being deprived of the benefit of your property was fantasy. It was a bullshit ruling, but a ruling it was. 

So does this mean that if you have mags > 10rds at home, that you can't get in trouble since this court said you can't be deprived of the benefit of your property in regards to large capacity mags?     

Anyone know of any cases where someone got in trouble just for having large capacity mags in NJ?  

 

[Ferris 78]

43 minutes ago, ESB said:

So does this mean that if you have mags > 10rds at home, that you can't get in trouble since this court said you can't be deprived of the benefit of your property in regards to large capacity mags?     

Anyone know of any cases where someone got in trouble just for having large capacity mags in NJ?  

 

I don't of a case going to court but I assure if there is a search warrant or consensual search of your home they( the police) do check the mags.

[ESB 247]

I'm sure they do.  My point was that if it goes to court because of the mags, their argument above either becomes invalid or you could argue that the court has stated that they can't deprive you the benefit of your property and therefore seizing your mags (and arresting you for them) violates what the court said.