Leaderboard

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20180717/federal-court-upholds-decision-to-block-california-s-magazine-ban

Ok possibly good news . My dog saw the surgeon today and the surgeon thinks there’s a good chance she can heal without surgery. There’s still a chance surgery may be needed but the somewhat bright side is that the surgery will be 4500 verses 8k

Not sure if this is the correct forum. I just found this by mistake but looks like there is a recall murphy petition on change.org and appears to be pretty close to meeting it's goal of 15k signatures. Everyone should get on and sign it. https://www.change.org/p/citizens-of-nj-recall-governor-murphy

https://reason.com/volokh Second Amendment Injunction Against California Ban on Large-Capacity-Magazines Kept in Place by Ninth Circuit The panel concludes that the district court didn't abuse its discretion in issuing the injunction -- though the decision is non-binding. Eugene Volokh|July 17, 2018 7:21 pm In Duncan v. Becerra, a federal district court had issued a preliminary injunction blocking the enforcement of California's ban on magazines that fit more than 10 rounds, pending a full trial on the merits. Today, the Ninth Circuit upheld this, in a 2-1 nonprecedential decision, though one that heavily deferred to the lower court's judgment, and didn't prejudge the final result after a trial is held and the final judgment is issued and appealed. The majority opinion was written by Judge Randy Smith, joined by visiting District Judge Deborah Batts; the dissent was written by Judge Clifford Wallace. For those who watch such matters, both Judges Smith and Wallace are Republican appointees, as is Judge Roger Benitez, whose decision is being affirmed here; both Judges Smith and Wallace are known as solid conservatives (I can't speak to Judge Benitez). But the deciding vote on the panel, in favor of upholding the lower court's decision protecting Second Amendment rights, was cast by a judge who sits in Manhattan, was appointed by President Clinton, and is said to have been "the nation's first openly LGBT, African-American federal judge." Here is an excerpt from the majority: The district court did not abuse its discretion by granting a preliminary injunction on Second Amendment grounds.... The district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that magazines for a weapon likely fall within the scope of the Second Amendment. First, the district court identified the applicable law, citing[, among other cases,] Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco (9th Cir. 2014). Second, it did not exceed its permissible discretion by concluding, based on those cases, that (1) some part of the Second Amendment right likely includes the right to bear a weapon "that has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"; and (2) the ammunition for a weapon is similar to the magazine for a weapon, Jackson, 746 F.3d at 967 ("'[T]he right to possess firearms for protection implies a corresponding right' to obtain the bullets necessary to use them." (quoting Ezell v. City of Chicago (7th Cir. 2011))).... Here, in its intermediate scrutiny analysis, the district court correctly applied the two-part test outlined in Jackson. The district court concluded that a ban on ammunition magazines is not a presumptively lawful regulation and that the prohibition did not have a "historical pedigree." Next, the district court concluded ... that section 32310 infringed on the core of the Second Amendment right, but ... that intermediate scrutiny was the appropriate scrutiny level. The district court concluded that California had identified four "important" interests and reasoned that the proper question was "whether the dispossession and criminalization components of [section] 32310's ban on firearm magazines holding any more than 10 rounds is a reasonable fit for achieving these important goals." ... The district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that sections 32310(c) and (d) did not survive intermediate scrutiny. The district court's review of the evidence included numerous judgment calls regarding the quality, type, and reliability of the evidence, as well as repeated credibility determinations. Ultimately, the district court concluded that section 32310 is "not likely to be a reasonable fit." California articulates no actual error made by the district court, but, rather, multiple instances where it disagrees with the district court's conclusion or analysis regarding certain pieces of evidence. This is insufficient to establish that the district court's findings of fact and its application of the legal standard to those facts were "illogical, implausible, or without support in inferences that may be drawn from facts in the record." United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1251 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc). In reviewing the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction, we cannot "re-weigh the evidence and overturn the district court's evidentiary determinations—in effect, to substitute our discretion for that of the district court." ... The district court did not abuse its discretion by granting a preliminary injunction on Takings Clause grounds. First, the district court ... outlined the correct legal principles. Second, the district court did not exceed its discretion by concluding (1) that the three options provided in section 32310(d) (surrender, removal, or sale) fundamentally "deprive Plaintiffs not just of the use of their property, but of possession, one of the most essential sticks in the bundle of property rights"; and (2) that California could not use the pol ce power to avoid compensation. And here's one from Judge Wallace's dissent: The majority concludes the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding California's large-capacity magazine (LCM) possession ban did not survive intermediate scrutiny on the ground that the district court's conclusion was based on "numerous judgment calls regarding the quality, type, and reliability of the evidence." The problem, however, is that the district court's "judgment calls" presupposed a much too high evidentiary burden for the state. Under intermediate scrutiny, the question is not whether the state's evidence satisfies the district court's subjective standard of empiricism, but rather whether the state relies on evidence "reasonably believed to be relevant" to substantiate its important interests. So long as the state's evidence "fairly supports" its conclusion that a ban on possession of LCMs would reduce the lethality of gun violence and promote public safety, the ban survives intermediate scrutiny.... The district court is correct that a physical appropriation of personal property gives rise to a per se taking. But here, LCM owners can comply with § 32310 without the state physically appropriating their magazines. Under § 32310(d)(1), an LCM owner may "[r]emove the large-capacity magazine from the state," retaining ownership of the LCM, as well as rights to possess and use the magazines out of state. The district court hypothesized that LCM owners may find removal to be more costly than it is worth, but such speculation, while theoretically relevant to the regulatory takings inquiry, does not turn the compulsory removal of LCMs from the state into a "physical appropriation" by the state.... There's a lot more—the opinion is fairly long for a nonprecedential decision—and you can read it all here. Thanks to Charles Nichols for the news about the decision coming down. VIEW COMMENTS (31)

I may be biased but our case has better merits.

Let's get this party started.

Sig Sauer NSig Sauer NJ Compliant 10 Round Magazines Sale 55% off. https://www.sigsauer.com/store/

im sure they will be changing the COE'S shortly so I saved the current form to a thumb drive and printed out many copies. Doing this will come in handy in case you ever have to store your guns for safe keeping and away from folks who intend to harm you during a nasty divorce or if your kids friends mommy creates a false public alarm. All my friends have owned all of our guns long before this stupid law was signed so if we trade among ourselfs nobody needs to know.

I maintain that has been the biggest problem - nonvoters. Poor voter turnout led to Murphy and more. If it happens again in the mid-terms we're screwed. Bad politicians are elected by good people that don't vote.

Huh?? Baby Boomers vote Republican two to one over Democrats.

I signed it with the name "Steve Sweeney"

What 4th option you smokin?

Uncle Grizz tends to advise well. Most of the time. Lol

for me, that is baby steps.

Poking through the documents online, it was heard by three judges, Bennett was not one of them. You don't ever get all the judges unless you get an en-banc hearing.

signed. disappointed its not to throw him into a volcano

lol. I need to ask Hillary I guess.

Here's some really great related news (on Duncan vs. Becerra - CA magazine 10-round ban): https://www.nraila.org/articles/20180717/federal-court-upholds-decision-to-block-california-s-magazine-ban Here is the ruling: http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Duncan-2018-07-17-Memorandum-Affirming.pdf

Here's one in a slightly different flavor...

I recently made the move from NJ to FL and can tell you the drive taking 78 to 81 to 77 is so much better than taking 95 all the way. Once we got west of Allentown the drivers were all wonderful, everyone drove right and passed left and people moved out of the right lane as cars entered the road. Then, we linked up with 95 in South Carolina and everything changed. Once there we had cars with NY, NJ and CT plates and for the most part they were all assholes. They drove slow in the left lane and weaved in and out all over the road passing people. Sure glad we avoided them most of the trip.

Agreed. I enjoyed the movie overall. That Range 15 movie I don't know how anyone was able to watch more than 5 minutes. I certainly couldn't. Dumbest movie I have ever seen. Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Happened way before 2015. Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

^^^^^ Good advice from Griz, that saves you $13.90 a month!

I'm really not impressed by Evan Nappen. However I was impressed by the attorney from PA who gave the presentation I went to. If you're wrong an attorney will try to get you the best deal. If you're right a good attorney will pound them to the ground. I've never seen a case where Nappen did anything unless the judge was a jackass (Brian Aiken who screwed himself IMO). A good attorney will keep you out of going to.trial. Or if you do ensure your acquittal. I'd tell you to ask John Gottii but he's dead. You don't need a "gun lawyer" if things go wrong for you. You need a good criminal defense attorney. I know a few.

problem is they've pissed me off with the check thing...and a phone call didn't help anything.

That is great news!

If CA can appeal the lower court’s injunction then you’d think the we could as well.

will also cover an accidental/unintended discharge as well. No brainer in my book.

We are ALL biased pizan, thanks for sharing.

Isn't there some rule about big words and posting?

Hot effing damn! Breaking out the good whiskey tonight.

Never thought about this, stupid me. Something really to think about. Just never know when something might happen. Sounds like U.S Shield is the most popular. Thank you Zeke for the thread.

It’s no fun if you have to explain it....have you NOT seen ‘True Lies’?

Got some nutsedge popping up..stuff is super ugly and annoying..gonna grab some sedgehammer on amazon and fix their ass Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Bug-B-Gone is good stuff. Blast your whole yard, and then double blast the perimeter.

I have US Law Shield nation wide as well. Covers you in all US states, territories, and possessions. It's inexpensive and makes sense. If you are arrested or detained you might know the law better than the cop. But you're wrong to argue the law with the cop who arrested you. He or she thinks they're right. Easier to make a call to US Law Shield. An attorney can get more done over the phone in a few minutes than you can arguing and waving copies of a law in a cop's face for hours.

I got da US Law Shield, it be like 13 dollaz a monf automatically comes out. Cus Iz dindonuffin

https://www.anjrpc.org/?legal_advice Perks of being a member.

I watched it last night. Kept me entertained to the end. But I agree about the ending. So mny questions, as if a sequel is required. I won't spoil it for anyone looking to watch yet. But they forgot that in a complete power outage, the fuel pumps wouldn't work, cash or no cash. And that Caddy got some terrific gas mileage! And the neighbor knew the make of the pistol by sight. For a Seattle software developer, he sure has a good eye for firearms, lol.

$5 credit with purchase of $25 Amazon gift card with code GCPRIME18. Gift it to yourself and it's a free $5.

You do get dogpiled on on occasion, often you set yourself up for it. Your bucket pool may be a regular thing, it does not make it legal. So probably best not to post about winning one, where it happens, etc. If they are getting the right license for a non-profit org to run a fund raising raffle, then post away, but you might want to state that. If they aren't, it's one of those things that one might want to exercise some discretion about.

Part of a radioactive spider egg which was filled with thousands of babies. Last time I saw this was in '04, still have nightmares bout that week. Hopefully, you have a flamethrower and know at least 3 members of the Colombian special forces, too. Good luck.

It's an IUD.

So pretty much EVERY AR will become illegal........ detachable mag plus a pistol grip = murderous weapon from hell. So this bill has not been voted on yet, correct? Sounds to me like they are making a firearm “in common use by law abiding citizens” illegal to posses. Sounds to me like something the SCOTUS with Kavanaugh would take issue with....

Correction...EVERY GUN OWNER.....is a threat to them and their utopian wet dream. They need the rifles out of the hands of riflemen pure and simple.... They consider us the enemy and part of "the problem"...make no mistake about it. Your a zealot, your a potential terrorist...your an agitator.... look at rh er words they use I'm the media specifically to describe us

I wondered about that earlier too, when I read the state's position on magazines. Not a good argument for them. Wouldn't it be a real kick in the pants if we were "forced" to buy standard, 30 rounds mags, like the majority of the free states?

There you go again with that 'logic' stuff. We won't have any of THAT here, thankyouverymuch. I'd laugh very hard if NJ were bitchslapped into accepting standard capacity mags. If that were the case, I would GLADLY get rid of at least some of my NJ neutered magazines...

they're not buybacks no govt entity can buy BACK that which they never owned.

It's not about being a man or being a sissy, it's about winning. With a good brake coupled up with light weight reciprocating parts (bcg/buffer) I can double tap a 17" circle out to 50 yards with splits running around 0.15-0.18 seconds I can't do that with a naked muzzle. If you watch this video you'll see what i mean. Look at the muzzle, if it wasn't for the smoke or the sound you'd have no idea the rifle is firing. Here's another video where you can see the brake being of benefit. Again, without the audio you can barely tell the rifles firing. I could not shoot those 5 targets that quickly without a muzzle device. So, that's why I use one, and also why every single 3-gun champion does as well.

My Beretta 92FS in stainless purchased in the mid 90's.