b47356

No, it really isn't. It will probably surprise you that it only seems to apply to those in custody. https://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/parkland/florida-school-shooting/fl-ne-douglas-survivor-lawsuit-federal-judge-20181217-story.html You will have to give an example, since an incident would have to occur with the police standing right there when it started. Or some are just tired of special protected classes in NJ wrt firearms law.

Pretty sure it is about a higher hit probability, not necessarily putting 3/4/5 holes at once in the target.

It is well established that there is no duty to act. DeShaney v. Winnebago County (1989) Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005) Warren v. District of Columbia (1981) (DC Court of Appeals) Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department (1990) (9th circuit court of appeals)

Is saying "I would like a LEO to explain" the same as "blaming the cop"? The state made the argument that LEOs have "training and experience" that your average gun owner does not to use "high capacity" mags. I would like someone to explain just what this training is. And much like all the other losing "sure thing" cases over the last several years, they don't have to rehear it en banc, and SCOTUS is not required to take a case. My opinion is that SCOTUS is not doing its job in passing on the gun cases, but nobody can force them to do anything.

Well, you might think that, but the 3rd circuit disagrees: "Finally, because retired law enforcement officers have training and experience that makes them different from ordinary citizens, the law’s exemption that permits them to possess magazines that can hold more than ten rounds does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause." https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/183170p.pdf Someday a LEO will explain this "training and experience" that a civilian who used (gasp) 15 round mags for years does not have. Of course, you could use that same reasoning to only allow motor vehicles to be driven by emergency services. Then again, I'm not sure the judge who wrote that opinion knows which end the bullet comes out of..

Every time I've read "extensive training", I just ask myself "in what?" - because I've been part of 2 different private clubs that let the local police or county sheriff use their range - and it was nothing but: divots in the floor, holes in everything directly downrange, bullet gouges in the walls, etc.. I'll admit that I never saw any damage in the 180 behind the line, but looking at what they did in front of the line I can only attribute that to luck.

Call the governor?

I haven't figured out yet how these 5 additional rounds make an otherwise acceptable firearm something that only the gov't should have..

If you really want to read something.. interesting.. Read this declaration from the mag ban lawsuit. http://www.thekaplanblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/18cv10507_53.pdf Or if you want to see a list of all the filings in the case: http://www.thekaplanblog.com/cases-of-interest/nj-magazine-ban-lawsuit/

I know that. It also works both ways. See Peruta, Kolbe, etc Is there a majority of 2A friendly types in the 3rd circuit if it goes to an en banc ruling?

You do understand that SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) is not required to hear every case sent to them, right? Actually, they only hear ~80 (and issue bench rulings in another ~100) cases each term. Out of the 7K+ sent to them. Those are not very good odds, yet some seem to believe that there is some requirement that they must hear the case...

Perhaps I'm just burned out on "we will win this one, its a slam dunk" And there is nothing else, its either win in court, or win at the ballot box. We saw how the ballot box went, with Gov. Goldman Sachs II promising to raise taxes and easily winning.

A gun friendly judge in NJ? Ok, that stops it until the case is heard. Then you spend years and $$$$$$$ trying to get a win somewhere along the line - and then you get to SCOTUS - which doesn't have to hear the case. See https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/16-894 for an example of how things have gone for a while now in trying to get them to hear a meaningful 2A case. Kolbe denied, Peruta denied, etc... So there is another CA case.. an injunction only lasts until you get a cert denied from SCOTUS - if you have the $$$$$$$$ to take it that far. Yet we can't even get a win in NJ when the gov't attorney seems to be trying to deliberately lose the case.

What level of state or federal court do you see overturning this? I can only think of one, and they 1) are not required to hear every case and 2) it is always a coin flip when that court hears a case.

Well, the bill says this: "y. "Large capacity ammunition magazine" means a box, drum, tube or other container which is capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition to be fed continuously and directly therefrom into a semi-automatic firearm. The term shall not include an attached tubular device which is capable of holding only .22 caliber rimfire ammunition." I'm not a lawyer, and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn last night, but the language seems pretty clear.