At least the State is finally admitting they view law abiding citizens and criminals as one in the same.

Trying to figure out the "logic" in anything The-Lefty does is a waste of time (ok, maybe it is an emotional release which is fine). I would of liked an answer yesterday like everyone else, but the arguments for our side are strong. I don't know how well our Lawyers present things real-time in court, but the written brief is very well done (not to be mistaken with perfect :-)), factual, connected to law, and precedent. Hang on to your 15's for now as is, plenty of time before December if things don't go well in August. But I believe we will get the injunction unless the Judge is asleep at the wheel or a Closet-Lefty.

46 minutes ago, diamondd817 said:

At least the State is finally admitting they view law abiding citizens and criminals as one in the same.

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 

15 hours ago, Rob0115 said:

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 so 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 fell my tax money is dangerous, especially in the hands of libtards.  

Or just quickly poll the baliffs, state police or marshalls in the courtroom about how many rounds their sidearms hold.

chances are good they won't answer.....and that you'll be questioned outside for wanting to know how many rounds they carry.

the fact is though, that in saying that these things are dangerous in the hands of law abiding citizens they've screwed up big time(for themselves), as long as our lawyers jump on that shit hard.

39 minutes ago, PeteF said:

Or just quickly poll the baliffs, state police or marshalls in the courtroom about how many rounds their sidearms hold.

 

16 minutes ago, 1LtCAP said:

the fact is though, that in saying that these things are dangerous in the hands of law abiding citizens they've screwed up big time(for themselves), as long as our lawyers jump on that shit hard.

Isn't that an oxymoron? Aren't the deputies, sheriffs and state police law abiding citizens? Shouldn't THEY be consider dangerous too?

What makes them special? If our attorneys point that out, it should end this crazy magazine ruling, once and for all.

12 hours 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. 

 

    

 

Not only that but to further add to #1;

 

they are making people who DONT break the law FELONS. They are using the law to make us criminals, and at the same time forcing us to give up legal property.

 

I would also like to add that their argument is very weak to any sane person. I really don't see them winning unless the judge is some mental lefty.

 

I think we the people should also sue to remove mag capacity as a whole on the pure basis that it is unconstitutional and that standard mags are in very common use as a whole voiding their argument that it is dangerous and unusual. It's blantantly obvious the opposite is true. 

4 hours ago, diamondd817 said:

At least the State is finally admitting they view law abiding citizens and criminals as one in the same.

You're a "law abiding citizen" right up to the second you're not. They don't want to wait.

13 hours 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??????

 

 

It's not really a matter of how can this stand, at this point.  No case has been closed or decision made yet.  

The real question is COULD the judge have thrown the whole thing out, or made a decision based on the days commentary... or is he OBLIGATED to take this to formal hearing to make a decision?  IMO that's the "color commentary" ANJRPC should be providing donors, especially if they want more donations.  

47 minutes ago, Chris1 said:

Not only that but to further add to #1;

 

they are making people who DONT break the law FELONS. They are using the law to make us criminals, and at the same time forcing us to give up legal property.

 

I would also like to add that their argument is very weak to any sane person. I really don't see them winning unless the judge is some mental lefty.

 

I think we the people should also sue to remove mag capacity as a whole on the pure basis that it is unconstitutional and that standard mags are in very common use as a whole voiding their argument that it is dangerous and unusual. It's blantantly obvious the opposite is true. 

on top of the above, we should also sue(after we've won the injunction) for ALL costs incurred to beat it.

2 minutes ago, JHZR2 said:

It's not really a matter of how can this stand, at this point.  No case has been closed or decision made yet.  

The real question is COULD the judge have thrown the whole thing out, or made a decision based on the days commentary... or is he OBLIGATED to take this to formal hearing to make a decision?  IMO that's the "color commentary" ANJRPC should be providing donors, especially if they want more donations.  

it's black n white. he could've thrown it out right then and there, based on the states own arguments.

Ive donated to the ANJPRC that's doing the lawsuit also and hope everyone does add even a little because this seems like it may be the case that decides against all mag caps.

6 minutes ago, Chris1 said:

Ive donated to the ANJPRC that's doing the lawsuit also and hope everyone does add even a little because this seems like it may be the case that decides against all mag caps.

Agree, same here, making my biggest and most frequent donations ever. Hope everyone is doing their part and not using little excuses as a reason not to. This is all we got now, gun owners blew it last November (I still can't figure out that one, just because Christi was laying on a closed beach looking like, well ;-)...No reason to stay home).

"Constitutional," "logical," and "facts" are terms that have never mattered in NJ.  Hard to be optimistic that they will suddenly be taken seriously now.  

15 minutes ago, 1LtCAP said:

on top of the above, we should also sue(after we've won the injunction) for ALL costs incurred to beat it.

it's black n white. he could've thrown it out right then and there, based on the states own arguments.

Agree on recouping ALL costs.  

On the other topic, what you replied to my quote about, I assume that you are not a lawyer well-versed in these things, nor am I.  So the fundamental issue is that we are not aware if there is a specific procedure that must be maintained or not.   If we are not qualified to provide basis of what happens then it is just speculation That the whole thing could just be thrown out in just one day without a hearing.  If you are qualified to state what typically happens in this arena based upon substantial evidence and experience then I apologize.

10 minutes ago, JHZR2 said:

Agree on recouping ALL costs.  

On the other topic, what you replied to my quote about, I assume that you are not a lawyer well-versed in these things, nor am I.  So the fundamental issue is that we are not aware if there is a specific procedure that must be maintained or not.   If we are not qualified to provide basis of what happens then it is just speculation That the whole thing could just be thrown out in just one day without a hearing.  If you are qualified to state what typically happens in this arena based upon substantial evidence and experience then I apologize.

closest qualification i have is common sense.

20 minutes ago, Old Glock guy said:

"Constitutional," "logical," and "facts" are terms that have never mattered in NJ.  Hard to be optimistic that will suddenly be taken seriously now.  

Sort of. I don't believe I was old enough to care about the previous mag reduction, but was there a lawsuit regarding the standard mag capacity when they lowered it to 15? If not, then yes it is time to take this seriously, and now there are way more gun owners today than in previous years. That number is also growing daily.

16 minutes ago, 1LtCAP said:

closest qualification i have is common sense.

The real kind, not "everytown's" brand

i about puked when I saw a lady wearing an  "everytown" shirt that mentioned common sense...

I would hope that if this suit against lowering the limit to 10 is successful then that precedence and same arguments would be used for a new suit that targets limits in their entirety. 

Edit; just read the whole injunction and it's fantastic. 

 

Thank You ANJRPC!! 

On 7/13/2018 at 0:14 PM, Chris1 said:

Sort of. I don't believe I was old enough to care about the previous mag reduction, but was there a lawsuit regarding the standard mag capacity when they lowered it to 15? If not, then yes it is time to take this seriously, and now there are way more gun owners today than in previous years. That number is also growing daily.

A group called the "Coalition of NJ Sportsmen" (which I don't believe exists anymore) sued the state over the entire AWB, but I don't recall a law suit regarding just the mag limit. I believe Nappen was one of the lawyers in that suit.

I actually just tried to make a donation using the link JohnnyB provided with paypal to be used as the payment, but when their website redirects to paypal I get a server error. Does anybody on here work for ANJRPC ?

28 minutes ago, Schrödinger's cat said:

I actually just tried to make a donation using the link JohnnyB provided with paypal to be used as the payment, but when their website redirects to paypal I get a server error. Does anybody on here work for ANJRPC ?

Yes! Anthony Colandro @gunforhire can chime in here. Thank you for putting your money where your mouth is! Everyone should follow your example!

7 hours ago, Oakridgefirearms said:

A group called the "Coalition of NJ Sportsmen" (which I don't believe exists anymore) sued the state over the entire AWB, but I don't recall a law suit regarding just the mag limit. I believe Nappen was one of the lawyers in that suit.

Not asking you specifically but where was ANJRPC when the AWB was being implemented?  I wasn't tuned in with the shooting community back thenas much as now. I'm just guessing but was probly run by old time fudds?

Sort of. I don't believe I was old enough to care about the previous mag reduction, but was there a lawsuit regarding the standard mag capacity when they lowered it to 15? If not, then yes it is time to take this seriously, and now there are way more gun owners today than in previous years. That number is also growing daily.

In the lines of capacity, it was lowered to 10 in the orig awb. Then I blinked when it went to, (not back to), 15.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

When the Fed AWB went into effect in Sept 94, the limit on new mags became 10. Older, already owned mags were grandfathered, thus the name "preban" (just a dirty 6 letter word here)

But our limit here in PRNJ became 15 in 1990, so when Fed AWB kicked in, older 15's were still ok, but new mags were all 10's.

Fed AWB expired Sept 2004 and we stayed at 15, everyone (well almost) went sky's the limit again.

14 hours ago, njJoniGuy said:

When the Fed AWB went into effect in Sept 94, the limit on new mags became 10. Older, already owned mags were grandfathered, thus the name "preban" (just a dirty 6 letter word here)

But our limit here in PRNJ became 15 in 1990, so when Fed AWB kicked in, older 15's were still ok, but new mags were all 10's.

Fed AWB expired Sept 2004 and we stayed at 15, everyone (well almost) went sky's the limit again.

Well, we have an UnConstitutional fight on our hands.

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

Good links, thanks! This is already being discussed in another thread though that got an earlier start... so I'm going to merge them together.

Edit: Oops, another mod beat me to it! LOL. Gotta be quick on the draw around here, I guess. 

Edit #2: and here's another link with some analysis and backgrounds of the judges involved.

https://reason.com/volokh/2018/07/17/second-amendment-injunction-against-cali

 

 

Half the time it is stated that what happens in CA isn’t relevant to NJ... but then this is news that is good.  

Wonder how they will play this as precedent.  

On 7/13/2018 at 11:45 AM, Combat Auto said:

Agree, same here, making my biggest and most frequent donations ever. Hope everyone is doing their part and not using little excuses as a reason not to. This is all we got now, gun owners blew it last November (I still can't figure out that one, just because Christi was laying on a closed beach looking like, well ;-)...No reason to stay home).

Well, there's gun owners and then there is us, the minority of NJ gun owners. Many of the majority are fudds, many are democrats who are happy to take a 10 round magazine because they are just shitty people for whom "why do you ever need more than two rounds in the shotgun?", and many are police officers with their nice fat pensions to mind, and they don't mind shitting on the lesser humans in this state as they are all moving out after they retire to get their BS retired LEO special privileges for barely qualifying twice a year at the range for 25 years.