Magazine Ban Upheld

[Zeke 5,504]

Revel points... 1

[jm1827 284]

Not surprised, unfortunately.

[Old Glock guy 1,127]

1 hour ago, Zeke said:

En banc next

No, they only go en banc when the libs lose.  

Next stop:  SCOTUS, which has never been more favorable to us in our lifetimes.  

[BobA 1,235]

1 hour ago, SJG said:

The opinion is out 2 to 1 decision. We lost https://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinions-and-oral-arguments

Alright well big ef'in deal.  We knew this would be the decision.  Two Demo judges and one Reb judge.  I'm somewhat glad.  I want this to go to the SCOTUS (after Ginsberg bites the dust).

[voyager9 3,434]

1 hour ago, SJG said:

The opinion is out 2 to 1 decision. We lost https://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinions-and-oral-arguments

Two fucking cock suckers. Their decision boils down to “what Constitution? Nyah Nyah Nyah”

[Tunaman 552]

I love the part about the cops being different as the have "Extensive" training. Fuck that.  We hire them.  I know thousands of people with more training that 90 % them.  Fuck this state.  Fuck you democrats.

[brucin 923]

I'm just as surprised by this decision as I am when I wake up in the morning and the sky is blue.

[voyager9 3,434]

Refresh my memory. Is this just the appeal of the denied injunction or the actual case at hand?

[leahcim 680]

On 12/4/2018 at 2:58 PM, SIGMan Freud said:

Sigh...All of my standard ("high-capacity" in NJ-speak) are now safely out of state.

But Governor Gopher, if you're out there, I replaced every 15 rounder with three 10 round magazines. So I have more capacity and it takes less than a second to swap mags. Silly Dems - they can't do basic math. 

And don't forget to purchase a few more guns to keep within arms reach at all times.

[Sniper 6,372]

What the hell is this crap, they're blaming Legal Gun owners for supplying Criminals!!!

Shooters in at least 71% of mass shootings in the past 35 years obtained their guns legally,” App. 853, or from a family member or friend (as was the case with the Newtown shooter who took his mother’s lawfully-owned guns), App. 190, 195, 486, and gun owners in lawful possession of firearms are a key source of arming criminals through loss and theft of their firearms.

 

and this:

While a trained marksman or professional speed shooter operating in controlled conditions can change a magazine in two to four seconds, App. 109, 263-67, 656, 1027, an inexperienced shooter may need eight to ten seconds to do so,

So, doesn't it make sense homeowners need larger mags so they don't have to reload for defense?

When you have a high capacity magazine it allows you to fire off a large number of bullets in a short amount of time, and that gives individuals much less opportunity to either escape or to try to fight back

They just made that case for us!

Even if this event had not occurred, “New Jersey need not wait for its own high-fatality gun massacre before curtailing access to LCMs.”

Ahhh, no evidence or example, but we'll pass the law anyway.

The Court concluded that the Takings claim failed because the modification and registration options “provided property owners with avenue to comply with the law without forfeiting their property.”

So, screw you on the cost of the mags....

and the final nail in the coffin:

After concluding that Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on their claims, the District Court stated that Plaintiffs did not satisfy the other requirements for a preliminary injunction,  and denied their motion. Plaintiffs appeal.

 

[voyager9 3,434]

Your use of strike through makes baby Jesus cry. 

I found it more interesting thst the majority claimed that they could use Intermediate scrutiny because this law does not burden the 2A.  People could just use a reduce cap mag and still meet the core of the 2A.  The dissent claimed the law does burden 2A because it limits the right so strict scrutiny must be applied. 

All comes down to the legal definition of “burden” and criteria used to apply it. 

[Sniper 6,372]

9 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

Your use of strike through makes baby Jesus cry. 

There was a bracket in the release, which made the whole document strike. I had to copy and paste the whole thing again.

 

[NJBeretta 42]

3 hours ago, Tunaman said:

I love the part about the cops being different as the have "Extensive" training.

Orwell said it best:

”All animals are equal - but some animals are more equal than others.”

[b47356 21]

4 hours ago, Tunaman said:

I love the part about the cops being different as the have "Extensive" training.

Every time I've read "extensive training", I just ask myself "in what?" - because I've been part of 2 different private clubs that let the local police or county sheriff use their range - and it was nothing but: divots in the floor, holes in everything directly downrange, bullet gouges in the walls, etc.. I'll admit that I never saw any damage in the 180 behind the line, but looking at what they did in front of the line I can only attribute that to luck.

[JackDaWack 2,895]

4 hours ago, voyager9 said:

Refresh my memory. Is this just the appeal of the denied injunction or the actual case at hand?

Both, I believe. Once an injunction is placed the state is forced to stop enforcing the law. I believe this is how it works through the system when someone hasn't been indicted or broken a law.

[M4BGRINGO 139]

On 12/4/2018 at 5:52 PM, Sniper22 said:

You are who you associate with.

Plus, who let's their wife know what they own???  That's Nuts!

 

Well, my wife owns a 92FS, has 10 mags also. Of course, they are NOT 10 round mags either. If it weren't for me, she wouldn't even know what the assholes in Trenton did. Hell, how many gun owners in NJ even know about this abortion of a law?

[Zeke 5,504]

13 minutes ago, M4BGRINGO said:

Well, my wife owns a 92FS, has 10 mags also. Of course, they are NOT 10 round mags either. If it weren't for me, she wouldn't even know what the assholes in Trenton did. Hell, how many gun owners in NJ even know about this abortion of a law?

About less then 20% of legal gun owners 

[Sniper 6,372]

13 minutes ago, Zeke said:

About less then 20% of legal gun owners 

I'd say even less. Hell, most LEOs don't know about them.

 

[reloaderguy 30]

16 hours ago, voyager9 said:

Your use of strike through makes baby Jesus cry. 

I found it more interesting thst the majority claimed that they could use Intermediate scrutiny because this law does not burden the 2A.  People could just use a reduce cap mag and still meet the core of the 2A.  The dissent claimed the law does burden 2A because it limits the right so strict scrutiny must be applied. 

All comes down to the legal definition of “burden” and criteria used to apply it. 

Burden=$50 I just payed for 1 mag for my CZ Czechmate and I have more guns to go.

[voyager9 3,434]

Just now, reloaderguy said:

Burden=$50 I just payed for 1 mag for my CZ Czechmate and I have more guns to go.

Obviously everyone is financially or temporarily(personal time) burdened trying to comply. The question is whether that is a factor, legally, of a burden on a Constitutional right. 

[1LtCAP 4,264]

it seems some people think that either state pd or local pd's may use pistol registration information to know who to go after for standard capacity mags......

[diamondd817 827]

22 minutes ago, 1LtCAP said:

it seems some people think that either state pd or local pd's may use pistol registration information to know who to go after for standard capacity mags......

[Zeke 5,504]

29 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

Obviously everyone is financially or temporarily(personal time) burdened trying to comply. The question is whether that is a factor, legally, of a burden on a Constitutional right. 

When did we replace” infringe “ with “ un due burden “

[Smokin .50 1,907]

1 hour ago, M4BGRINGO said:

Well, my wife owns a 92FS, has 10 mags also. Of course, they are NOT 10 round mags either. If it weren't for me, she wouldn't even know what the assholes in Trenton did. Hell, how many gun owners in NJ even know about this abortion of a law?

Mike, folks that are more than "casual hobbyists" KNOW what happened this week.  They make it their bidness to STAY INFORMED.  They participate in social media, forums, blogs & such.  Those that don't know what happened use firearms strictly for recreation and deem their 2A rights not important enough to hit "like" on Facebook...

[Zeke 5,504]

27 minutes ago, Smokin .50 said:

Mike, folks that are more than "casual hobbyists" KNOW what happened this week.  They make it their bidness to STAY INFORMED.  They participate in social media, forums, blogs & such.  Those that don't know what happened use firearms strictly for recreation and deem their 2A rights not important enough to hit "like" on Facebook...

Or they ignore it and don’t comply.. 2 sides to every coin

if heroine is illegal why does this state have 3 x the national average in overdose deaths.

illegal=illegal 

[reloaderguy 30]

1 hour ago, voyager9 said:

Obviously everyone is financially or temporarily(personal time) burdened trying to comply. The question is whether that is a factor, legally, of a burden on a Constitutional right. 

Certainty is when you consider they say it's a burden to get a voter id card.

[Zeke 5,504]

18 minutes ago, reloaderguy said:

Certainty is when you consider they say it's a burden to get a voter id card.

Valid point! Good point!

rights are rights 

[SJG 253]

For those that may not know it, the case is still before the District Court Judge. The affirmance of the denial of the preliminary injunction does not end the case because it is not a determination on the merits, only on the fact that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a probability of success on the merits. There is nothing that stops the plaintiffs from seeking to introduce any additional expert testimony or data sources and the same is true for the State. The plaintiffs have a right to a trial on the merits of the case. In theory, the plaintiff's can appeal from any final decision. For tactical reasons the plaintiffs may or may not request the court to simply enter a final order denying a final permanent injunction.  It is not likely, the plaintiffs can win on the merits, but the Third Circuit ruling only pertains to the preliminary injunction. 

[voyager9 3,434]

34 minutes ago, SJG said:

For those that may not know it, the case is still before the District Court Judge. The affirmance of the denial of the preliminary injunction does not end the case because it is not a determination on the merits, only on the fact that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a probability of success on the merits. There is nothing that stops the plaintiffs from seeking to introduce any additional expert testimony or data sources and the same is true for the State. The plaintiffs have a right to a trial on the merits of the case. In theory, the plaintiff's can appeal from any final decision. For tactical reasons the plaintiffs may or may not request the court to simply enter a final order denying a final permanent injunction.  It is not likely, the plaintiffs can win on the merits, but the Third Circuit ruling only pertains to the preliminary injunction. 

In that vein, I imagine the injunction proceedings serve as a test run and allows both sides to augment their case based on the ruling and opinions. 

Realstically while that’s true I don’t know that any argument would be enough to sway the district/circuit court. Their rulings were emotion-based on fact and not the other way around.  The only relief may be if it’s a different t panel at the circuit level. All this really does is delay bringing the case itself all the way to scotus. 

[voyager9 3,434]

4 hours ago, Zeke said:

When did we replace” infringe “ with “ un due burden “

That’s my point. Where is it legally defined what “burdened” means when it comes to rights. Or “infringed” for that matter. The majority opinion is that the right is not burdened because there are other mags that can be used. You can’t prove them wrong because there is no consistent definition.  Similarly you can’t say the dissent is correct for the same reason. It’s all interpretation. 

It would be nice if things were consistent. Hate speech is protected because banning it is burdening 1A, voter ID is a similar burden. But mag limits and the cost of compliance is not?  Makes no sense but there is no legal backstop.