Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • NJGF members in chat (2)



×

Important Information