Jump to content
BobA

The suits have started

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Zeke said:

And after a positive verdict the litigant sues for damages. Still comes out of our pocket though ( all taxpayers)

Does that happen in federal cases against a state?  Did Heller or McDonald get reimbursed for their legal fees necessary to take their cases tIn SCOTUS?   I know they had help from organizations but still, front log that kind of money is a prettt big toll. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

Does that happen in federal cases against a state?  Did Heller or McDonald get reimbursed for their legal fees necessary to take their cases tIn SCOTUS?   I know they had help from organizations but still, front log that kind of money is a prettt big toll. 

Look it up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reminder: Injunction hearing is tomorrow, July 12th. 

Update from ANJRPC:

https://www.anjrpc.org/page/NJUSGunBanGroups

The State of New Jersey was first to oppose the injunction motion, arguing among other things that the newly banned magazines are “dangerous and unusual weapons” not protected by the Second Amendment, which pose a danger to the public even in the hands of law-abiding citizens. The State also argues that the banned magazines are not needed for self-defense, but are “perfectly suited for illicit use.”  
 
“Claiming that banned magazines are not needed for self-defense while simultaneously exempting their use for the protection of lawmakers is outrageous and the height of hypocrisy,” said ANJRPC Executive Director Scott Bach. “This elitist double standard is irrational, indefensible, and shows the utter contempt New Jersey has for its ‘subjects,’” said Bach.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, voyager9 said:

Reminder: Injunction hearing is tomorrow, July 12th. 

Update from ANJRPC:

https://www.anjrpc.org/page/NJUSGunBanGroups

 

 

Sounds like the State of NJ has a weak argument.  Why are they dangerous and unusual weapons and suited for illicit use when they are not considered so in most states?

We shall see.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, GRIZ said:

Sounds like the State of NJ has a weak argument.  Why are they dangerous and unusual weapons and suited for illicit use when they are not considered so in most states?

We shall see.

This is a good read.  ANJRPC pretty much destroys the state’s arguments

https://www.anjrpc.org/resource/resmgr/anjrpcs_2a_lawsuits/anjrpc_reply_brief_on_reques.pdf

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, voyager9 said:

This is a good read.  ANJRPC pretty much destroys the state’s arguments

https://www.anjrpc.org/resource/resmgr/anjrpcs_2a_lawsuits/anjrpc_reply_brief_on_reques.pdf

 

I like it. It sure would be nice to get standard capacity mags. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, silverado427 said:

I like it. It sure would be nice to get standard capacity mags. 

Keep in mind that it appears much of ANJRPC’s case is based on N.J. going from 15 to 10 and how the State has not shown a compelling reason why this is justified (from a Takings clause).  They specifically mention this in their response. 

I don’t know that any action on this case would invalidate the prior 15-round limit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

Keep in mind that it appears much of ANJRPC’s case is based on N.J. going from 15 to 10 and how the State has not shown a compelling reason why this is justified (from a Takings clause).  They specifically mention this in their response. 

I don’t know that any action on this case would invalidate the prior 15-round limit. 

I am hopeful that, since this law changes the "mag capacity limit" in general, that mean that if the injunction is granted then the entire "mag capacity limit" is put on hold, as a whole. Again, this is my hope, I am not a lawyer, could be just wishful thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MartyZ said:

I am hopeful that, since this law changes the "mag capacity limit" in general, that mean that if the injunction is granted then the entire "mag capacity limit" is put on hold, as a whole. Again, this is my hope, I am not a lawyer, could be just wishful thinking.

It is wishful thinking. And I’m sure most of us feel the same way. But the injunction is specifically for the mag ban to 10 rounds. If the injunction is granted, they would put the 10 round limit legislation on hold and we would be allowed to use our 15 round mags.

i believe a completely separate lawsuit would be required to overturn previous laws passed and already instated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This section in particular leads me to believe that if the injunction is granted, we will return to our 15 round limit.

 

Hopefully this is successful, and snowballs into more discussion of how New Jersey law is directly affecting its citizens 2nd amendment rights.

538F0C32-AB94-4E81-BD9A-7A4D72C40B83.jpeg

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mossy500 said:

I understand a U.S. District Court is scheduled to hear argument on ANJRPC’s request for an injunction today.. that decision doesn't come in the same day no? Maybe in a few weeks?

Anthony had Scott Bach on his podcast Saturday and he made it sound like we would get a decision fairly quickly.

The judge hearing the injunction expedited the hearing to today and supposedly we should get a decision “as early as this month” according to Mr Bach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems yesterday was a warm-up for the judge. Factual presentations in detail mid August, no decision likely till end of August. Just keep your 15 rounders as is, plenty of time before December to do whatever you need to do if it doesn't go well. I can't imagine not getting the injunction though, unless the Judge is asleep at the wheel, or a closet-Lefty-Activist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Redlines said:

Just one good point from that article:

...." “Claiming that banned magazines are not needed for self-defense while simultaneously exempting their use for the protection of lawmakers is outrageous and the height of hypocrisy,” said ANJRPC Executive Director Scott Bach. “This elitist double standard is irrational, indefensible, and shows the utter contempt New Jersey has for its ‘subjects,’” said Bach.

How can the state disagree that?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Sniper22 said:

Just one good point from that article:

...." “Claiming that banned magazines are not needed for self-defense while simultaneously exempting their use for the protection of lawmakers is outrageous and the height of hypocrisy,” said ANJRPC Executive Director Scott Bach. “This elitist double standard is irrational, indefensible, and shows the utter contempt New Jersey has for its ‘subjects,’” said Bach.

How can the state disagree that?

When you live in a disagreeable sanctuary socialist state, governed by a disagreeable buck-toothed carpetbagger, and legislated over by a disagreeable head-busting union thug ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sniper22 said:

Just one good point from that article:

...." “Claiming that banned magazines are not needed for self-defense while simultaneously exempting their use for the protection of lawmakers is outrageous and the height of hypocrisy,” said ANJRPC Executive Director Scott Bach. “This elitist double standard is irrational, indefensible, and shows the utter contempt New Jersey has for its ‘subjects,’” said Bach.

How can the state disagree that?

 

 

 

It’s a very good point.  The problem is the logic will be ignored because it’s conclusion flies in the face of the ‘States’ greater good.  If the agree, they have to acknowledge that the their ‘subjects’ have equal standing with the important classes and therefore gets unconditionally ignored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://reason.com/volokh

Second Amendment Injunction Against California Ban on Large-Capacity-Magazines Kept in Place by Ninth Circuit

The panel concludes that the district court didn't abuse its discretion in issuing the injunction -- though the decision is non-binding.

Eugene Volokh|July 17, 2018 7:21 pm

  •  

In Duncan v. Becerra, a federal district court had issued a preliminary injunction blocking the enforcement of California's ban on magazines that fit more than 10 rounds, pending a full trial on the merits. Today, the Ninth Circuit upheld this, in a 2-1 nonprecedential decision, though one that heavily deferred to the lower court's judgment, and didn't prejudge the final result after a trial is held and the final judgment is issued and appealed.

The majority opinion was written by Judge Randy Smith, joined by visiting District Judge Deborah Batts; the dissent was written by Judge Clifford Wallace. For those who watch such matters, both Judges Smith and Wallace are Republican appointees, as is Judge Roger Benitez, whose decision is being affirmed here; both Judges Smith and Wallace are known as solid conservatives (I can't speak to Judge Benitez). But the deciding vote on the panel, in favor of upholding the lower court's decision protecting Second Amendment rights, was cast by a judge who sits in Manhattan, was appointed by President Clinton, and is said to have been "the nation's first openly LGBT, African-American federal judge."

Here is an excerpt from the majority:

The district court did not abuse its discretion by granting a preliminary injunction on Second Amendment grounds....

The district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that magazines for a weapon likely fall within the scope of the Second Amendment. First, the district court identified the applicable law, citing[, among other cases,] Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco (9th Cir. 2014). Second, it did not exceed its permissible discretion by concluding, based on those cases, that (1) some part of the Second Amendment right likely includes the right to bear a weapon "that has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"; and (2) the ammunition for a weapon is similar to the magazine for a weapon, Jackson, 746 F.3d at 967 ("'[T]he right to possess firearms for protection implies a corresponding right' to obtain the bullets necessary to use them." (quoting Ezell v. City of Chicago (7th Cir. 2011)))....

Here, in its intermediate scrutiny analysis, the district court correctly applied the two-part test outlined in Jackson. The district court concluded that a ban on ammunition magazines is not a presumptively lawful regulation and that the prohibition did not have a "historical pedigree." Next, the district court concluded ... that section 32310 infringed on the core of the Second Amendment right, but ... that intermediate scrutiny was the appropriate scrutiny level. The district court concluded that California had identified four "important" interests and reasoned that the proper question was "whether the dispossession and criminalization components of [section] 32310's ban on firearm magazines holding any more than 10 rounds is a reasonable fit for achieving these important goals." ...

The district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that sections 32310(c) and (d) did not survive intermediate scrutiny. The district court's review of the evidence included numerous judgment calls regarding the quality, type, and reliability of the evidence, as well as repeated credibility determinations. Ultimately, the district court concluded that section 32310 is "not likely to be a reasonable fit." California articulates no actual error made by the district court, but, rather, multiple instances where it disagrees with the district court's conclusion or analysis regarding certain pieces of evidence. This is insufficient to establish that the district court's findings of fact and its application of the legal standard to those facts were "illogical, implausible, or without support in inferences that may be drawn from facts in the record." United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1251 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc). In reviewing the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction, we cannot "re-weigh the evidence and overturn the district court's evidentiary determinations—in effect, to substitute our discretion for that of the district court." ...

The district court did not abuse its discretion by granting a preliminary injunction on Takings Clause grounds. First, the district court ... outlined the correct legal principles. Second, the district court did not exceed its discretion by concluding (1) that the three options provided in section 32310(d) (surrender, removal, or sale) fundamentally "deprive Plaintiffs not just of the use of their property, but of possession, one of the most essential sticks in the bundle of property rights"; and (2) that California could not use the pol ce power to avoid compensation.

And here's one from Judge Wallace's dissent:

The majority concludes the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding California's large-capacity magazine (LCM) possession ban did not survive intermediate scrutiny on the ground that the district court's conclusion was based on "numerous judgment calls regarding the quality, type, and reliability of the evidence." The problem, however, is that the district court's "judgment calls" presupposed a much too high evidentiary burden for the state. Under intermediate scrutiny, the question is not whether the state's evidence satisfies the district court's subjective standard of empiricism, but rather whether the state relies on evidence "reasonably believed to be relevant" to substantiate its important interests. So long as the state's evidence "fairly supports" its conclusion that a ban on possession of LCMs would reduce the lethality of gun violence and promote public safety, the ban survives intermediate scrutiny....

The district court is correct that a physical appropriation of personal property gives rise to a per se taking. But here, LCM owners can comply with § 32310 without the state physically appropriating their magazines. Under § 32310(d)(1), an LCM owner may "[r]emove the large-capacity magazine from the state," retaining ownership of the LCM, as well as rights to possess and use the magazines out of state. The district court hypothesized that LCM owners may find removal to be more costly than it is worth, but such speculation, while theoretically relevant to the regulatory takings inquiry, does not turn the compulsory removal of LCMs from the state into a "physical appropriation" by the state....

There's a lot more—the opinion is fairly long for a nonprecedential decision—and you can read it all here. Thanks to Charles Nichols for the news about the decision coming down.

 
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...