Zeke 5,504 Posted December 6, 2018 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voyager9 3,433 Posted December 6, 2018 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). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
10X 3,296 Posted December 7, 2018 I believe the first amendment is more dangerous than the second. The pen is mightier than the sword, after all. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
capt14k 2,052 Posted December 7, 2018 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 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fred2 367 Posted December 7, 2018 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DirtyDigz 1,811 Posted January 10, 2019 Majority of 3rd circuit judges voted against an En Banc hearing (Hardiman voting for). En Banc hearing denied. Throw another one on the pile for the Supreme Court. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1LtCAP 4,262 Posted January 10, 2019 I thought we had a more equal mix in the 3rd now? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BobA 1,235 Posted January 10, 2019 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sniper 6,372 Posted January 10, 2019 11 hours ago, 1LtCAP said: I thought we had a more equal mix in the 3rd now? Apparently not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bt Doctur 188 Posted January 11, 2019 I know of no criminal today that will abide by that ruling. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChrisJM981 924 Posted January 11, 2019 21 hours ago, 1LtCAP said: I thought we had a more equal mix in the 3rd now? 6 - 6 with 2 vacancies I believe. Hopefully DJT gets on that! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1LtCAP 4,262 Posted January 11, 2019 33 minutes ago, ChrisJM981 said: 6 - 6 with 2 vacancies I believe. Hopefully DJT gets on that! well apparently half that should be on our side aren't...…... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChrisJM981 924 Posted January 11, 2019 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1LtCAP 4,262 Posted January 11, 2019 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? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voyager9 3,433 Posted January 11, 2019 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. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
345Sire 158 Posted January 11, 2019 13 hours ago, Bt Doctur said: I know of no criminal today that will abide by that ruling. Mebbe ya wanna expand yer circle of frenz? 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
345Sire 158 Posted January 11, 2019 On 1/10/2019 at 5:38 AM, BobA said: A feel good infringement if you will. Isn't that kind of a double negative? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChrisJM981 924 Posted January 11, 2019 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BobA 1,235 Posted January 11, 2019 4 hours ago, 345Sire said: Isn't that kind of a double negative? So is having a one party system in our state. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
345Sire 158 Posted January 11, 2019 4 minutes ago, BobA said: So is having a one party system in our state. Yeah, sux big time. So much for democracy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voyager9 3,433 Posted July 29, 2019 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sniper 6,372 Posted July 29, 2019 2 minutes ago, voyager9 said: Case dismissed: Don't worry, the SCOTUS will save us, right? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bklynracer 1,263 Posted July 29, 2019 Did we / you expect anything different from a Jersey judge? Keep up the fight and maybe someday in the future things might change. 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyB 4,321 Posted July 29, 2019 13 minutes ago, Sniper said: Don't worry, the SCOTUS will save us, right? I will keep my faith in SCOTUS until and if they prove undeserving! 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voyager9 3,433 Posted July 29, 2019 21 minutes ago, Sniper said: Don't worry, the SCOTUS will save us, right? Well, the 3rd did flip. Maybe it won’t take all the way to SCOTUS. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
njJoniGuy 2,131 Posted July 29, 2019 What has happened to our Constitutionally-guaranteed G-d-given right to keep and arm bears??? 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bighungry618 450 Posted July 29, 2019 10 minutes ago, njJoniGuy said: What has happened to our Constitutionally-guaranteed G-d-given right to keep and arm bears??? 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FreeNJ 8 Posted July 30, 2019 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? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyB 4,321 Posted July 30, 2019 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! 2 4 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites