Jump to content
lilred121986

THIRD CIRCUIT DENIES INJUNCTION IN MAG BAN CASE 2 DAYS AFTER PAPERS SUBMITTED

Recommended Posts

anjrpc_header-2-revised-b.jpg
THIRD CIRCUIT DENIES INJUNCTION IN MAG BAN CASE 2 DAYS AFTER PAPERS SUBMITTED
 
October 12, 2018.  ‎The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied ANJRPC's motion for an injunction pending appeal in our challenge to New Jersey's magazine ban, just two days after both sides submitted their initial briefs.
 
The denial was "without prejudice," which means that the motion can be made again should circumstances warrant. The denial came with no opinion or explanation, and may indicate that the Third Circuit‎ intends to rule in the appeal itself before expiration of the 180 compliance period on December 10.
 
‎Please watch for further updates and alerts, and for ANJRPC's guidance to gun owners coming later this month.

 

https://www.anjrpc.org/page/ThirdCircuitDeniesInjunction

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm reading it as ANJRPC made an appeal regarding the injunction to the third circuit. They also filed with the third circuit for injunctive relief. This request for injunctive relief was denied without prejudice. They are saying that this may mean that the denial is due to the appeal as a whole being adjudicated prior to the 12-10 deadline. 

 

If you have a law that will affect a group of people, and a suit is brought against the government, it is the norm that injunctive relief is granted until that court case is sorted out if there is demonstrably a potential to harm the class of people bringing suit. Even in California, they grasp that a magazine ban fits this pattern very well. But NJ courts are basically cronies of our criminal class politicians in NJ so they don't use the normal legal standards for such things. 

The third circuit will probably not protect us in the least unless they see their reputation being harmed now that SCOTUS composition has been changed. However, they SHOULD see that forcing people to destroy or permanently alter their property is material harm and deserves injunctive relief until you prevail or lose in court. I'm assuming the 3rd being the 3rd, they will assume lose. They should also view the concept of injunctive relief as a legal tenant that should be protected as much as possible as it overwhelmingly does more good than harm. None of that should be expected from NJ courts. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, diamondd817 said:

This means the 3rd circuit already knows it's going to rule against the people of NJ (as usual) before Dec 10.

The only thing the 3rd circuit is going to do before 12-10 is rule on the appeal of the injunction. They don't have the case proper yet. For them to not rule on behalf on injunctive relief would be shocking. Even the 9th permitted injunctive relief despite doing their best to uphold the mag ban there. 

IMO the 3rd and 2nd are more apt to ignore law and precedent wholesale (the 9th at least likes to pretend they exist within the structure of the law, even if it is with very selective hearing and reading). Denying injunctive relief would be a deep cut to legal tradition and ethics here, so it'd be a BIG kind of FU for the 3rd to give NJ gun owners. I'm not comfortable calling it either way because IMO as a whole the 2nd and 3rd represent some of the most unsupported legal reasoning I have seen. Even so, all things considered, I'd have to ask WTF they are thinking if they deny it. Why? 

1) NJ courts won't protect us. 

2) Why dick with gun owners and screw your reputation up as well as damage a quality judicial tool by being dicks when you can just have patience and rule fuck you later at the actual trial? 

3) With a change of SCOTUS composition, why risk risk being publicly declared morons twice rather than once?

4) Even without the SCOTUS change, why risk looking like petty scumbags when you could just have patience and be officially declared as correct for your judicial decision when the appeal hits your court? 

5) Why miss an opportunity to whip it out and measure it when you can't lose. NJ courts aren't exactly respected. 

2 minutes ago, PK90 said:

NJ will do what NJ wants. Federal rules and laws mean nothing to the politicians and judges. They think NJ is its own country.

Yup. The courts will. As for "law" they will do what they always do. Which is largely fail to enforce anything on the books in a meaningful way. They will say they are right until they are smacked down by a higher court. At that point I suspect if they lose they will strike it down and try to pass something slightly different and equally oppressive. If SCOTUS is on our side, ehe question is how many times will the 3rd circuit choose to jump off that bridge with these shitweasels. 

 

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those in the know, this was completely expected. Also, I do not believe the 3d Circuit will rule for us on the merits. To my knowledge, no Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has yet ruled for the Plaintiff on the merits. The Ninth Circuit Opinion was just an affirmance of the issuance of a preliminary injunction as opposed to an affirmance of a final decision. In the absence of new U. S. Supreme Court decision on the subject or a U. S. Supreme Court decision in this or a similar case--this is probably going nowhere. Magazine limits are probably not enough of an infringement to constitute a Second Amendment violation. Now open carry is a different issue.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Why not go for 1? No semiautomatic. Jus musket?

they'll be to 5 by the time we manage to get rid of murphy at the end of this term. if the inmates in this fucking state vote him in for a 2nd term, we'll lose semi-auto by the end of that.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya know, I used to not worry too much about going to 5 rds and banning semi auto because of the common use protection thing. But after seeing the judges brief outright admitting that yes the 15 reds are in common use then going out of his way to blab on with a bunch of legalize to justify that the state can ignore that protection because NJ knows better has me nervous. I can actually see them trying that shit now knowing the judiciary has their back.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Ya know, I used to not worry too much about going to 5 rds and banning semi auto because of the common use protection thing. But after seeing the judges brief outright admitting that yes the 15 reds are in common use then going out of his way to blab on with a bunch of legalize to justify that the state can ignore that protection because NJ knows better has me nervous. I can actually see them trying that shit now knowing the judiciary has their back.

you have it wrong, his rationale is admitted bias is going to make for an overturn in the higher courts.  The worst thing these libs could do is have this go to higher federal courts to be struck down.  They have overplayed their hand.

 

I commend the groups fighting this, need to donate more

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, myhatinthering said:

you have it wrong, his rationale is admitted bias is going to make for an overturn in the higher courts.  The worst thing these libs could do is have this go to higher federal courts to be struck down.  They have overplayed their hand.

 

I commend the groups fighting this, need to donate more

Get your blatant optimism out of here.  There is no place for that on these forums :)

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've already seen judges in the fed circuit question if mag restrictions are really a safety concern seeing as how more than half of 'mass shooting's are with capacities less than the federal limit.  Now with Trump putting in more judges at the circuit level and SC, the libs have got an uphill battle to prove.  Once this is ruled at that level, we'll see the restrictions on brakes etc next brought to the court.  

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, myhatinthering said:

you have it wrong, his rationale is admitted bias is going to make for an overturn in the higher courts.  The worst thing these libs could do is have this go to higher federal courts to be struck down.  They have overplayed their hand.

 

I commend the groups fighting this, need to donate more

What am I wrong about? I implied the judges bias, NJ legislators have already stated its interest in imposing the no semi and 5 rd laws or is it the being nervous part? I agree about the overturns and am looking forward to them but until then NJ will do as it pleases in its normal contemptuous manner. And we will go on asking do we keep, sell, hide, ship out of state etc until each and every anti law claws its way up the judicial system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Very possible, makes me wonder if it's time to stock up on wheel guns.
 
You mean those high capacity handguns that were so dangerous most Western towns banned them at city limits for safety? If it was unsafe in 1845 it's unsafe today.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sniper22 said:

Very possible, makes me wonder if it's time to stock up on wheel guns.

 

It’s always time to stock up on wheelguns!

Just don’t give up on the “in common use” semiautomatics  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly, I have to question seriously the decision to support our case before the trial court with one testifying expert. Although it may not have made a difference-in a situation where the NRA basically gave us a blank check on this case--we should have had more qualified expert witnesses testifying at the hearing as the record on appeal is limited to that which was made in the trial court. I would rather be on appeal with a strong factual record from multiple experts then putting all my eggs in one basket with one expert.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was surprised about the "only one expert approach" on our side also. Apparently, the "law" is somewhat subjective (like it or not), flooding the "zone" would be better I believe. Would it have change anything this time? I would guess not, reading the court ruling, sounds like the judge already knew his ruling from the minute he got the case, and just found a subjective way to get there....In the unlikely chance it gets to the Supreme's (I mean I hope it does), our side should have more expert witnesses.

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...