Jump to content
gunforhire

Could NJ be next? A WIN FOR CA GUN OWNERS: The 9th Circuit ruled against the 10 round ban today!

Recommended Posts

If NJ loses and we are not granted an injunction, couldn’t we appeal to higher courts?

doesnt SCOTUS usually take up cases where different circuits disagree?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Gunnz said:

If NJ loses and we are not granted an injunction, couldn’t we appeal to higher courts?

doesnt SCOTUS usually take up cases where different circuits disagree?

If CA can appeal the lower court’s injunction then you’d think the we could as well.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, 1LtCAP said:

just outa curiousity, how'd that judge that trump appointed there vote on this?

Poking through the documents online, it was heard by three judges, Bennett was not one of them. You don't ever get all the judges unless you get an en-banc hearing. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Poking through the documents online, it was heard by three judges, Bennett was not one of them. You don't ever get all the judges unless you get an en-banc hearing. 

You know that will be the next step for sure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is good news but the opinion is not for publication and not precedential nor is the case in the  U.S. District court in Calif over.  NJ unlike the Calif law contains a fourth option for registration--for existing mags--not present as an option in the Calif law, which will surely impact the "takings" analysis. Also, the Ninth Cir opinion is not a ruling on the merits of the Calif 10 round mag bag.  However--a win is a win---

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, SJG said:

This is good news but the opinion is not for publication and not precedential and NJ unlike the Calif law  the Nj law contains a fourth option for registration--for existing mags--not present as an option in the Calif law, which will surely impact the "takings" analysis.  However--a win is a win---

What 4th option you smokin?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I guess we read the Nappen summary different:

"The new registration requirements demand that a person who legally owns, prior to the enactment of the new law; 1) a firearm with a fixed magazine capacity holding up to 15 rounds which is incapable of being modified to accommodate 10 or less rounds; OR 2) a firearm which only accepts a detachable magazine with a capacity of up to 15 rounds which is incapable of being modified to accommodate 10 or less rounds. One must register that firearm within one year from the new law’s enactment. (Even though there is only 180 day “grace period” for newly prohibited magazines.)
I guess the issue is "up to 15 rounds or less"--seems to me that means from 1-15--and if more than 10 which you can't modify I read it as saying you could register.

By the way, registration is a bad idea and nothing more than a prelude to seizure which will be the Dems next step

\

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, SJG said:

2) a firearm which only accepts a detachable magazine with a capacity of up to 15 rounds which is incapable of being modified to accommodate 10 or less rounds


I guess the issue is "up to 15 rounds or less"--seems to me that means from 1-15--and if more than 10 which you can't modify I read it as saying you could register.

That is only for firearms that accept a detachable mag that cannot be modified.  That is a very small minority of firearms.  That option is not valid for a significant number of firearm owners so “Takings” still applies. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, SJG said:

registration for fixed mags 15 or detachables of 15 or less that cannot be modified to 10. Calif did not have that option

This was in the final bill I believe:

17.      (New section)  a.  A person who legally owns a firearm 2[with a fixed magazine capacity holding up to 15 rounds which is incapable of being modified to accommodate 10 or less rounds and was purchased on or] as set forth in paragraph (1) or (2) of this subsection2 prior to the effective date of P.L.      , c.    (C.        ) (pending before the Legislature as this bill) shall register that firearm within one year from the effective date2[this act]:

     (1)   a firearm with a fixed magazine capacity holding up to 15 rounds which is incapable of being modified to accommodate 10 or less rounds; or

     (2)   a firearm which only accepts a detachable magazine with a capacity of up to 15 rounds which is incapable of being modified to accommodate 10 or less rounds2 .

     2b.2  In order to register the firearm 2pursuant to subsection a. of this section2, the owner shall: 

     (1)   complete a registration statement, in the form to be prescribed by the Superintendent of the State Police; 3and3

     (2)   3[pay a registration fee of $50 per firearm; and

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just looked at the passed and signed version of the statute. There is an inherent ambiguity regarding the section I quoted and another part of the law, that is the 180 grace period, whereas the quoted section has a one year registration time limit. I agree that the registration exception applies to magazines that cannot be modified but if the vast majority can be, then the takings issue may only apply to some but not all, but that does not make the takings stronger---but it may be enough. However, the time gap between the 180 grace period and the 1 year registration period, even if limited to a minority of mags--may afford a defense for anyone that goes beyond 180 days and up to the 1 year period, those in that group may be able to argue that they could not modify and the one year mandatory registration period still applies. Very poor drafting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/18/2018 at 6:52 PM, SJG said:

I just looked at the passed and signed version of the statute. There is an inherent ambiguity regarding the section I quoted and another part of the law, that is the 180 grace period, whereas the quoted section has a one year registration time limit. I agree that the registration exception applies to magazines that cannot be modified but if the vast majority can be, then the takings issue may only apply to some but not all, but that does not make the takings stronger---but it may be enough. However, the time gap between the 180 grace period and the 1 year registration period, even if limited to a minority of mags--may afford a defense for anyone that goes beyond 180 days and up to the 1 year period, those in that group may be able to argue that they could not modify and the one year mandatory registration period still applies. Very poor drafting.

The firearm must be registered, not the mag.  And most firearms can accept magazines that are modified to limit the count to 10 rounds.  The vast majority of firearms subject to this (AR's AK's etc) can accept magazines modified to accept 10 round limits.

I can't even think of a specialized gun that can only accept a 15 round mag unmodified.  I'm sure it's out there, but it's gotta be rare.

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...