Jump to content

Mag Ban Injunction Hearing 7/12/18

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, fishnut said:

Might as well add if @Zeke makes a spelling or grammar error. 

I hope no one plans on driving tonight. 

Good god man.  You might as well say that every time Zeke posts we get punched in the liver.  Which actually is a pretty apt metaphor. 

  • Like 5

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Mrs. Peel said:

If we added a shot for every time Matty says, "Remember, they want you dead" - and another shot when AVB-AMG says some version of, "Smart, educated Americans all agree..."   my god, we'd all be blissfully numb in what... no more than a couple of hours?

I'm so in! :D Good thinking, 10X. You're really on fire today!


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate to be the bearer...

But this WILL go to the SCOTUS and NOW I feel will many other Gun cases with Justice Kavanaugh!


New Jersey Supreme Court Upholds Magazine Ban

Posted at 10:00 am on October 8, 2018 by Tom Knighton



Magazine bans are a favorite cause of the left. It’s convinced that if you can only have so many rounds, bad people will suddenly become good and noble creatures. Alright, maybe not quite that, but they do think that a magazine ban will somehow have an impact on crime.

As such, they altered New Jersey’s magazine restrictions, lowering the limit from 15 rounds down to just 10.

Now, the state Supreme Court has upheld that ban.

Just in case gun owners needed another reason to back Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court or to get energized ahead of the 2018 midterm elections, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey gave us one. On September 28, District Judge Peter G. Sheridan denied a motion for a preliminary injunction that would have enjoined enforcement of New Jersey’s 10-round magazine capacity limit.

In his decision, Sheridan conceded that magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds are in “common use” and thus entitled to Second Amendment protection. However, Sheridan then proceeded, as other courts have done, to apply an infinitely malleable interest-balancing test standard to determine whether New Jersey’s infringement on the Second Amendment right is permissible.

In this vein, Sheridan concluded that the Garden State’s magazine ban should be subject to intermediate scrutiny, meaning that the policy must further an important government interest by a method substantially related to the interest. The court, acting as policy analyst, rejected testimony refuting the efficacy of magazine bans and adopted the state’s purported concerns over the criminal use of these items.

The Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs has made clear that they intend to appeal the decision.

Ironically, Sheridan may have done some of a future Supreme Court’s analysis on magazine bans for them. In his decision, the judge stated, “[m]uch of the legal history and tradition of [large capacity magazine] restrictions in the United States is relatively recent and evolving.”In his District of Columbia v. Heller opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia did not set forth an interest-balancing test for Second Amendment cases. Instead, Scalia noted that only some “longstanding”firearms restrictions were acceptable.

The real test will be whether the Supreme Court will even hear the case.

The Court hasn’t heard a Second Amendment case since McDonald, and there have been plenty worth its hearing. One concern was that Justice Kennedy, who sided with the majority on Heller and McDonald, had no interest in hearing another Second Amendment case, so he voted with the more liberal justices. I don’t know whether that’s the case or not, but it was certainly a possibility.

But with Kavanaugh on the Court, things would change from that potential status quo. At least theoretically.

If so, then the New Jersey magazine ban may appear before the Court and, based on who is on it right now, be struck down. This would be a huge win for the Second Amendment since a properly-written decision would also eliminate magazine restrictions throughout the nation.

However, it’s also interesting to note how different Sheridan’s decision is from the precedent set in Heller. It’s clear that activist judges like Sheridan aren’t using legal precedent in reaching their decisions, but are hiding their feelings-driven opinions behind legalese.



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Downtownv said:

In his decision, Sheridan conceded that magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds are in “common use” and thus entitled to Second Amendment protection.

IT SHOULD END RIGHT THERE!!!  CASE OVER!!!  its like Comey playing out the case for Hillary and concluding the complete opposite of the facts just stated! So tired of these liberal democrat wipped judges setting/legislating policy.

  • Like 2

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


Important Information