Jump to content

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

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. 

“ undue burden “ is 30’s phrasing 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also love the part of the majority opinion when they say the 2A can be limited more than any other right because “guns are dangerous”. 

While our Court has consulted First Amendment jurisprudence concerning the appropriate level of scrutiny to apply to a gun regulation, see Binderup v. Att’y Gen., 836 F.3d 336, 345 (3d Cir. 2016) (en banc); Marzzarella, 614 F.3d at 89 n.4, we have not wholesale incorporated it into the Second Amendment. This is for good reason: “[t]he risk inherent in firearms and other weapons distinguishes the Second Amendment right from other fundamental rights . . . .” Bonidy v. U.S. Postal Serv., 790 F.3d 1121, 1126 (10th Cir. 2015).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I also love the part of the majority opinion when they say the 2A can be limited more than any other right because “guns are dangerous”. 

While our Court has consulted First Amendment jurisprudence concerning the appropriate level of scrutiny to apply to a gun regulation, see Binderup v. Att’y Gen., 836 F.3d 336, 345 (3d Cir. 2016) (en banc); Marzzarella, 614 F.3d at 89 n.4, we have not wholesale incorporated it into the Second Amendment. This is for good reason: “[t]he risk inherent in firearms and other weapons distinguishes the Second Amendment right from other fundamental rights . . . .” Bonidy v. U.S. Postal Serv., 790 F.3d 1121, 1126 (10th Cir. 2015).


They are wrong. Shall not be infringed is pretty straight forward. The courts have based their rulings on Miller which was a setup. District Court judge ruled against NFA even though he was in favor because they knew Miller and Layton would never show up in front of SCOTUS. The case was decided with just the government presenting their case. In fact Miller may have been dead. Never even went to appeals court. SCOTUS was never informed that short barrel shotguns were used in trenches of WWI. There were no further proceedings. Yet Miller was cited even in Heller decision.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, capt14k said:


They are wrong. Shall not be infringed is pretty straight forward. The courts have based their rulings on Miller which was a setup. District Court judge ruled against NFA even though he was in favor because they knew Miller and Layton would never show up in front of SCOTUS. The case was decided with just the government presenting their case. In fact Miller may have been dead. Never even went to appeals court. SCOTUS was never informed that short barrel shotguns were used in trenches of WWI. There were no further proceedings. Yet Miller was cited even in Heller decision.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 

I agree Miller was bogus.

It would be great to see the SC, with an originalist majority,  address it again.

Share this post


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

I thought we had a more equal mix in the 3rd now?

 

I honestly believe that even supporters, if they aren’t shooters, don’t take the mag-thing seriously. I think they feel “the infringement be damned let’m Have it to shut them up”.   A feel good infringement if you will. 

Share this post


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

well apparently half that should be on our side aren't...…...

IIRC in the case of a tie the previous ruling would stand. There is no point doing an En Banc review if the votes to overturn the panel aren't there. We need POTUS and The Senate to get to work on nominations and votes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, ChrisJM981 said:

IIRC in the case of a tie the previous ruling would stand. There is no point doing an En Banc review if the votes to overturn the panel aren't there. We need POTUS and The Senate to get to work on nominations and votes. 

then we aren't gonna see anything. if national recip didn't get acted on, do you really think something fron pfrnj is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, 1LtCAP said:

then we aren't gonna see anything. if national recip didn't get acted on, do you really think something fron pfrnj is?

I think he’s talking about filling the judicial vacancies. That is something that is certainly a priority for the administration. 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

I think he’s talking about filling the judicial vacancies. That is something that is certainly a priority for the administration. 

President Trump has been nominating judges at a good rate. Hopefully we can get 2 into the 3rd circuit fairly quickly and undo some judicial activism. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Case dismissed:

https://www.inquirer.com/news/new-jersey/judge-upholds-new-jersey-limit-gun-ammunition-20190729.html

Quote

TRENTON, N.J. — A federal judge has upheld New Jersey’s law that lowers the number of bullets a gun can hold.

The judge sitting in Trenton on Monday dismissed a lawsuit filed by a gun rights group.

New Jersey passed a law last year that made it unlawful to possess firearm magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition, with some exceptions. The state says that's enough for self-defense and that anything more could prove dangerous to bystanders.

 

Share this post


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

Well, the 3rd did flip. Maybe it won’t take all the way to SCOTUS. 

A 3 judge panel previously upheld the ban, so the next step should've been en banc before the entire 3rd circuit. So why is only one judge now ruling on this?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, FreeNJ said:

A 3 judge panel previously upheld the ban, so the next step should've been en banc before the entire 3rd circuit. So why is only one judge now ruling on this?

 

 

Because NJ sucks and the U.S. Constitution is not honored here......YOU ARE NOT IN AMERICA!

 

download (1).jpg

  • Like 2
  • Agree 4

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...