Has anyone heard anything of today's hearing for Request for Injunction on the 15 to 10 round change in 2C:39?

Inquiring gun-owning minds want to know.

Dont worry, i got it covered!  

i just spent just under 400 on 10 rd mags for 3 of my pistols,  so i am sure that the injunction will stand!

and no i have not heard anything either, eagarly waiting...

 

AFTER-ACTION REPORT: ORAL ARGUMENT ON INJUNCTION REQUEST IN MAG BAN CASE!

Court Schedules Factual Hearings In Mid-August   No Decision On Injunction Before End Of Summer

July 12, 2018. This afternoon, a U.S. District Court Judge in Trenton heard oral argument on ANJRPC's motion for an injunction halting enforcement of the new magazine ban law until the case is decided.    U.S. District Judge Peter Sheridan called a pre-hearing conference in chambers where he told counsel that he is scheduling a full-blown hearing on certain factual aspects of the case by mid-August. Specifically, experts who provided declarations for both sides will be brought into court to provide further detailed testimony under oath.   Following the conference in chambers, Judge Sheridan heard brief oral arguments from both sides.   ANJRPC's legal team included attorneys from the law firm of Cooper & Kirk in addition to attorney Dan Schmutter. Counsel made a forceful case for why the injunction should be granted and the case resolved in favor of gun owners. They argued that New Jersey's gun owners would suffer irreparable harm if they are forced to sell, surrender, destroy or modify their property during the short compliance window, before the case is decided. They also argued that the magazine ban is unconstitutional and should be overturned because it violates the Second Amendment, violates equal protection, and is an unlawful "taking" of property.

Attorneys Scott Bach, David Thompson, Dan Schmutter and Peter Patterson outside the courtroom at today's hearing.

A large group of attorneys represented the State and other governmental defendants. They argued (among other things) that magazines over 10 rounds are dangerous and unusual weapons not protected under the Second Amendment, are not needed for self-defense, and are a danger to the public, even in the hands of law-abiding citizens.   Please watch for future updates and alerts.   SUPPORT THE LAWSUIT CLICK HERE TO DONATE!   Please forward this email to every gun owner you know, and if you don’t already receive alerts from ANJRPC, please subscribe to our free email alerts for the latest Second Amendment breaking news and action alerts.   About ANJRPC: The Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs is the official New Jersey affiliate of the NRA, and is New Jersey’s oldest, largest, and most effective Second Amendment advocacy organization.

So not really any indication one way or another. Unsurprisingly. 

I wonder if the decision on the injunction has to wait until after the mid-August meeting or if that is more for the case at large. 

So much for speedy justice! Just keep your mags until this blows over!

3 minutes ago, JohnnyB said:

No Decision On Injunction Before End Of Summer

 

Just now, voyager9 said:

So not really any indication one way or another. Unsurprisingly. 

I wonder if the decision on the injunction has to wait until after the mid-August meeting or if that is more for the case at large. 

See above.

8 minutes ago, JohnnyB said:

So much for speedy justice! Just keep your mags until this blows over!

 

See above.

I don’t see any reference to “end of summer” except within the post you quoted.  I believe my question still stands. 

12 minutes ago, JohnnyB said:

AFTER-ACTION REPORT: ORAL ARGUMENT ON INJUNCTION REQUEST IN MAG BAN CASE!

Court Schedules Factual Hearings In Mid-August   No Decision On Injunction Before End Of Summer

July 12, 2018. This afternoon, a U.S. District Court Judge in Trenton heard oral argument on ANJRPC's motion for an injunction halting enforcement of the new magazine ban law until the case is decided.    U.S. District Judge Peter Sheridan called a pre-hearing conference in chambers where he told counsel that he is scheduling a full-blown hearing on certain factual aspects of the case by mid-August. Specifically, experts who provided declarations for both sides will be brought into court to provide further detailed testimony under oath.

This was from the ANJRPC. No Decision On Injunction Before End Of Summer

Just now, JohnnyB said:

This was from the ANJRPC. No Decision On Injunction Before End Of Summer

It wasn’t obvious enough for me... 

Can't this just be settled with a trial by combat?

1 minute ago, ChrisJM981 said:

Can't this just be settled with a trial by combat?

If it could..........We would win!

Im pretty sure this is normal. Think of it as an indictment hearing, to determine if there is merit for trial. It would be nice to get an answer now, and it seems trivial to go through all this effort for an injunction when the courts could just use the time to figure out if the law is even constitutional. 

This means it went well. ANJRPC's oral argument was enough to convince a judge that their case has merit, and the state failed to convince the Judge that they do. Moving forward with a "full blown hearing" is a good thing. If anything it means that the states argument was so weak, the judge is giving them a extension to find something to argue. 

3 minutes ago, JackDaWack said:

Im pretty sure this is normal. Think of it as an indictment hearing, to determine if there is merit for trial. It would be nice to get an answer now, and it seems trivial to go through all this effort for an injunction when the courts could just use the time to figure out if the law is even constitutional. 

This means it went well. ANJRPC's oral argument was enough to convince a judge that their case has merit, and the state failed to convince the Judge that they do. Moving forward with a "full blown hearing" is a good thing. If anything it means that the states argument was so weak, the judge is giving them a extension to find something to argue. 

The judge decided he wanted the full hearing in August before oral arguments.  Perhaps the written briefs prompted that but the oral arguments couldn’t have. 

this hearing (and this law) is ridiculous. let me understand. the state gets in front of a judge to argue that an item (15rd mag), which has been legal for 100 years in the state of NJ, and is still legal to own until at least november, is, overnight, a "dangerous and unusual weapon"? a magazine. a magazine is no more a weapon in and of itself than a cellphone or a brick. any judge with any sense at all would have granted the injunction then and there

They argued (among other things) that magazines over 10 rounds are dangerous and unusual weapons not protected under the Second Amendment, are not needed for self-defense, and are a danger to the public, even in the hands of law-abiding citizens.

 

The entirety of this paragraph irks me to my very core.  However, I feel even more angry with the, “even in the hands of law-abiding citizens.”

They, without regard, have impugned my character and all other decent gun owners with no evidence or facts.   Arguing mags greater than 10 rounds are not common should be interesting.  We just need to a manufacturer website and see most standard capacity mags are greater than 10.  Also gun crime stats would prove illegal guns are used in the overwhelming majority crimes.  

I feel my tax money is dangerous, especially in the hands of libtards.  

16 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

The judge decided he wanted the full hearing in August before oral arguments.  Perhaps the written briefs prompted that but the oral arguments couldn’t have. 

I mean, their oral arguments are basically whats written in the briefs. 

17 minutes ago, Indianajonze said:

this hearing (and this law) is ridiculous. let me understand. the state gets in front of a judge to argue that an item (15rd mag), which has been legal for 100 years in the state of NJ, and is still legal to own until at least november, is, overnight, a "dangerous and unusual weapon"? a magazine. a magazine is no more a weapon in and of itself than a cellphone or a brick. any judge with any sense at all would have granted the injunction then and there

That was one of the arguments in the briefs:  that N.J. has had 15-round mags for a long time and that the state has failed to make the case why reducing to 10 is “dangerous”. 

15 minutes ago, Rob0115 said:

 and are a danger to the public, even in the hands of law-abiding citizens.

 

The entirety of this paragraph irks me to my very core.  However, I feel so angry with the, “even in the hands of law-abiding citizens.” 

Kind of makes you think that their definition of “law abiding” is rather slippery when it comes to gun owners. 

7 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

That was one of the arguments in the briefs:  that N.J. has had 15-round mags for a long time and that the state has failed to make the case why reducing to 10 is “dangerous”. 

Kind of makes you think that their definition of “law abiding” is rather slippery when it comes to gun owners. 

Law abiding citizens pose no danger. Jeebus what is going on here.. the minority report 

 

3 minutes ago, Zeke said:

Law abiding citizens pose no danger. Jeebus what is going on here.. the minority report 

 

If you add “currently” in front of “law-abiding gun owner” you get an idea how they think. In their mind every one of us could snap at any second.  They are in a race to make everything illegal before that happens so that their utopian world can be realized. 

1 hour ago, JackDaWack said:

Im pretty sure this is normal. Think of it as an indictment hearing, to determine if there is merit for trial. It would be nice to get an answer now, and it seems trivial to go through all this effort for an injunction when the courts could just use the time to figure out if the law is even constitutional. 

This means it went well. ANJRPC's oral argument was enough to convince a judge that their case has merit, and the state failed to convince the Judge that they do. Moving forward with a "full blown hearing" is a good thing. If anything it means that the states argument was so weak, the judge is giving them a extension to find something to argue. 

I hope you're right that this is normal.  It's not clear to me if this sort of thing does have to be given an acceptable hearing at law (since we know fully that neither side is looking for a "settlement"), or if a judge can make a determination without hearing, on the grounds that the situation is wrong. Effectively finding in favor for one party at the start.  

 

If the judge must hear the case to take it to closure, so be it.  My first guy wasthat this is disappointing, if not a cash grab by the lawyers, trying to drag it out as SOP. Hopefully I'm wrong in that regard. 

Anyone know how long it took to get the injunction in the CA case?  From date of hearing to judge’s decision. 

Edit: looks like it was about a month:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-california-court-guns-idUSKBN19L0C4

3 hours ago, JohnnyB said:

So much for speedy justice! Just keep your mags until this blows over!

Just store them in the back of your safe until The Purge happens. Then you can use them and it's totally not illegal.

4 hours ago, JohnnyB said:

AFTER-ACTION REPORT: ORAL ARGUMENT ON INJUNCTION REQUEST IN MAG BAN CASE!

Court Schedules Factual Hearings In Mid-August   No Decision On Injunction Before End Of Summer

July 12, 2018. This afternoon, a U.S. District Court Judge in Trenton heard oral argument on ANJRPC's motion for an injunction halting enforcement of the new magazine ban law until the case is decided.    U.S. District Judge Peter Sheridan called a pre-hearing conference in chambers where he told counsel that he is scheduling a full-blown hearing on certain factual aspects of the case by mid-August. Specifically, experts who provided declarations for both sides will be brought into court to provide further detailed testimony under oath.   Following the conference in chambers, Judge Sheridan heard brief oral arguments from both sides.   ANJRPC's legal team included attorneys from the law firm of Cooper & Kirk in addition to attorney Dan Schmutter. Counsel made a forceful case for why the injunction should be granted and the case resolved in favor of gun owners. They argued that New Jersey's gun owners would suffer irreparable harm if they are forced to sell, surrender, destroy or modify their property during the short compliance window, before the case is decided. They also argued that the magazine ban is unconstitutional and should be overturned because it violates the Second Amendment, violates equal protection, and is an unlawful "taking" of property.

Attorneys Scott Bach, David Thompson, Dan Schmutter and Peter Patterson outside the courtroom at today's hearing.

A large group of attorneys represented the State and other governmental defendants. They argued (among other things) that magazines over 10 rounds are dangerous and unusual weapons not protected under the Second Amendment, are not needed for self-defense, and are a danger to the public, even in the hands of law-abiding citizens.   Please watch for future updates and alerts.   SUPPORT THE LAWSUIT CLICK HERE TO DONATE!   Please forward this email to every gun owner you know, and if you don’t already receive alerts from ANJRPC, please subscribe to our free email alerts for the latest Second Amendment breaking news and action alerts.   About ANJRPC: The Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs is the official New Jersey affiliate of the NRA, and is New Jersey’s oldest, largest, and most effective Second Amendment advocacy organization.

could someone PULEEZE

PULEEZE what?

4 hours ago, JohnnyB said:

AFTER-ACTION REPORT: ORAL ARGUMENT ON INJUNCTION REQUEST IN MAG BAN CASE!

Court Schedules Factual Hearings In Mid-August   No Decision On Injunction Before End Of Summer

July 12, 2018. This afternoon, a U.S. District Court Judge in Trenton heard oral argument on ANJRPC's motion for an injunction halting enforcement of the new magazine ban law until the case is decided.    U.S. District Judge Peter Sheridan called a pre-hearing conference in chambers where he told counsel that he is scheduling a full-blown hearing on certain factual aspects of the case by mid-August. Specifically, experts who provided declarations for both sides will be brought into court to provide further detailed testimony under oath.   Following the conference in chambers, Judge Sheridan heard brief oral arguments from both sides.   ANJRPC's legal team included attorneys from the law firm of Cooper & Kirk in addition to attorney Dan Schmutter. Counsel made a forceful case for why the injunction should be granted and the case resolved in favor of gun owners. They argued that New Jersey's gun owners would suffer irreparable harm if they are forced to sell, surrender, destroy or modify their property during the short compliance window, before the case is decided. They also argued that the magazine ban is unconstitutional and should be overturned because it violates the Second Amendment, violates equal protection, and is an unlawful "taking" of property.

Attorneys Scott Bach, David Thompson, Dan Schmutter and Peter Patterson outside the courtroom at today's hearing.

A large group of attorneys represented the State and other governmental defendants. They argued (among other things) that magazines over 10 rounds are dangerous and unusual weapons not protected under the Second Amendment, are not needed for self-defense, and are a danger to the public, even in the hands of law-abiding citizens.   Please watch for future updates and alerts.   SUPPORT THE LAWSUIT CLICK HERE TO DONATE!   Please forward this email to every gun owner you know, and if you don’t already receive alerts from ANJRPC, please subscribe to our free email alerts for the latest Second Amendment breaking news and action alerts.   About ANJRPC: The Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs is the official New Jersey affiliate of the NRA, and is New Jersey’s oldest, largest, and most effective Second Amendment advocacy organization.

COULD SOMEON PULEEZE explain to me how this fucking stands???? how the hell is something a danger to the public in the hands of law abiding citizens??????

Just now, JohnnyB said:

PULEEZE what?

sorry man. i'm pissed off reading that, and effed up on the post

 

42 minutes ago, Greenday said:

Just store them in the back of your safe until The Purge happens. Then you can use them and it's totally not illegal.

One can only hope...

 

7 minutes ago, 1LtCAP said:

COULD SOMEON PULEEZE explain to me how this fucking stands???? how the hell is something a danger to the public in the hands of law abiding citizens??????

That's called "Liberal Logic", you'll never understand it, remember, Liberalism is a mental disease!

 

I think the injunction should have been granted, but I'm glad this is at least being given a chance to be heard and I think we have a chance to win.  I think the state fails to prove its case.  This is just my 3 cents on why (I'm no lawyer). 

 

1.  Law abiding citizens, by definition, abide by the law and therefore pose no danger.

2.  The shooter at the Parkland school in Florida (and several other past active shooter incidents) used 10 round magazines.  So wtf is the state of NJ really achieving here by limiting us to the same devices?

3.  42 states do not have magazine restrictions, so the demand for standard capacity magazines is much higher than demand for reduced capacity magazines. Therefore, there is nothing dangerous or unusual about standard capacity magazines.  They come with every firearm sold. The reduced capacity (15 or 10 round) magazines are more unusual because there are less of them sold due to only 8 states and Washington DC having magazine bans. 

 

    

 

23 minutes ago, Regular Guy said:

I think the injunction should have been granted, but I'm glad this is at least being given a chance to be heard and I think we have a chance to win.  I think the state fails to prove its case.  This is just my 3 cents on why (I'm no lawyer). 

 

1.  Law abiding citizens, by definition, abide by the law and therefore pose no danger.

2.  The shooter at the Parkland school in Florida (and several other past active shooter incidents) used 10 round magazines.  So wtf is the state of NJ really achieving here by limiting us to the same devices?

3.  42 states do not have magazine restrictions, so the demand for standard capacity magazines is much higher than demand for reduced capacity magazines. Therefore, there is nothing dangerous or unusual about standard capacity magazines.  They come with every firearm sold. The reduced capacity (15 or 10 round) magazines are more unusual because there are less of them sold due to only 8 states and Washington DC having magazine bans. 

 

    

 

Shooting people with 1 boolit or 100 boolits is against the law... law abiding citizens don’t do that( unless self defense, which is lawful)

1 hour ago, Zeke said:

Shooting people with 1 boolit or 100 boolits is against the law... law abiding citizens don’t do that( unless self defense, which is lawful)

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...

28 minutes ago, Malice4you said:

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...

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?