10 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

That’s my point. Where is it legally defined what “burdened” means when it comes to rights. Or “infringed” for that matter. The majority opinion is that the right is not burdened because there are other mags that can be used. You can’t prove them wrong because there is no consistent definition.  Similarly you can’t say the dissent is correct for the same reason. It’s all interpretation. 

It would be nice if things were consistent. Hate speech is protected because banning it is burdening 1A, voter ID is a similar burden. But mag limits and the cost of compliance is not?  Makes no sense but there is no legal backstop. 

“ undue burden “ is 30’s phrasing 

I also love the part of the majority opinion when they say the 2A can be limited more than any other right because “guns are dangerous”. 

While our Court has consulted First Amendment jurisprudence concerning the appropriate level of scrutiny to apply to a gun regulation, see Binderup v. Att’y Gen., 836 F.3d 336, 345 (3d Cir. 2016) (en banc); Marzzarella, 614 F.3d at 89 n.4, we have not wholesale incorporated it into the Second Amendment. This is for good reason: “[t]he risk inherent in firearms and other weapons distinguishes the Second Amendment right from other fundamental rights . . . .” Bonidy v. U.S. Postal Serv., 790 F.3d 1121, 1126 (10th Cir. 2015).

I believe the first amendment is more dangerous than the second.  The pen is mightier than the sword, after all.  

I also love the part of the majority opinion when they say the 2A can be limited more than any other right because “guns are dangerous”. 

While our Court has consulted First Amendment jurisprudence concerning the appropriate level of scrutiny to apply to a gun regulation, see Binderup v. Att’y Gen., 836 F.3d 336, 345 (3d Cir. 2016) (en banc); Marzzarella, 614 F.3d at 89 n.4, we have not wholesale incorporated it into the Second Amendment. This is for good reason: “[t]he risk inherent in firearms and other weapons distinguishes the Second Amendment right from other fundamental rights . . . .” Bonidy v. U.S. Postal Serv., 790 F.3d 1121, 1126 (10th Cir. 2015).

They are wrong. Shall not be infringed is pretty straight forward. The courts have based their rulings on Miller which was a setup. District Court judge ruled against NFA even though he was in favor because they knew Miller and Layton would never show up in front of SCOTUS. The case was decided with just the government presenting their case. In fact Miller may have been dead. Never even went to appeals court. SCOTUS was never informed that short barrel shotguns were used in trenches of WWI. There were no further proceedings. Yet Miller was cited even in Heller decision.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

48 minutes ago, capt14k said:

They are wrong. Shall not be infringed is pretty straight forward. The courts have based their rulings on Miller which was a setup. District Court judge ruled against NFA even though he was in favor because they knew Miller and Layton would never show up in front of SCOTUS. The case was decided with just the government presenting their case. In fact Miller may have been dead. Never even went to appeals court. SCOTUS was never informed that short barrel shotguns were used in trenches of WWI. There were no further proceedings. Yet Miller was cited even in Heller decision.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 

I agree Miller was bogus.

It would be great to see the SC, with an originalist majority,  address it again.

Majority of 3rd circuit judges voted against an En Banc hearing (Hardiman voting for).

En Banc hearing denied.

Throw another one on the pile for the Supreme Court.

 

 

I thought we had a more equal mix in the 3rd now?

 

6 hours ago, 1LtCAP said:

I thought we had a more equal mix in the 3rd now?

 

I honestly believe that even supporters, if they aren’t shooters, don’t take the mag-thing seriously. I think they feel “the infringement be damned let’m Have it to shut them up”.   A feel good infringement if you will. 

11 hours ago, 1LtCAP said:

I thought we had a more equal mix in the 3rd now?

 

Apparently not.

I know of no criminal today that will abide by that ruling.

21 hours ago, 1LtCAP said:

I thought we had a more equal mix in the 3rd now?

 

6 - 6 with 2 vacancies I believe. Hopefully DJT gets on that!

33 minutes ago, ChrisJM981 said:

6 - 6 with 2 vacancies I believe. Hopefully DJT gets on that!

well apparently half that should be on our side aren't...…...

2 hours ago, 1LtCAP said:

well apparently half that should be on our side aren't...…...

IIRC in the case of a tie the previous ruling would stand. There is no point doing an En Banc review if the votes to overturn the panel aren't there. We need POTUS and The Senate to get to work on nominations and votes. 

9 hours ago, ChrisJM981 said:

IIRC in the case of a tie the previous ruling would stand. There is no point doing an En Banc review if the votes to overturn the panel aren't there. We need POTUS and The Senate to get to work on nominations and votes. 

then we aren't gonna see anything. if national recip didn't get acted on, do you really think something fron pfrnj is?

28 minutes ago, 1LtCAP said:

then we aren't gonna see anything. if national recip didn't get acted on, do you really think something fron pfrnj is?

I think he’s talking about filling the judicial vacancies. That is something that is certainly a priority for the administration. 

13 hours ago, Bt Doctur said:

I know of no criminal today that will abide by that ruling.

Mebbe ya wanna expand yer circle of frenz? 

On 1/10/2019 at 5:38 AM, BobA said:

A feel good infringement if you will.

Isn't that kind of a double negative?

53 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

I think he’s talking about filling the judicial vacancies. That is something that is certainly a priority for the administration. 

President Trump has been nominating judges at a good rate. Hopefully we can get 2 into the 3rd circuit fairly quickly and undo some judicial activism. 

4 hours ago, 345Sire said:

Isn't that kind of a double negative?

So is having a one party system in our state. 

4 minutes ago, BobA said:

So is having a one party system in our state. 

Yeah, sux big time. So much for democracy.

Case dismissed:

https://www.inquirer.com/news/new-jersey/judge-upholds-new-jersey-limit-gun-ammunition-20190729.html

Quote

TRENTON, N.J. — A federal judge has upheld New Jersey’s law that lowers the number of bullets a gun can hold.

The judge sitting in Trenton on Monday dismissed a lawsuit filed by a gun rights group.

New Jersey passed a law last year that made it unlawful to possess firearm magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition, with some exceptions. The state says that's enough for self-defense and that anything more could prove dangerous to bystanders.

 

2 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

Case dismissed:

Don't worry, the SCOTUS will save us, right?

 

Did we / you expect anything different from a Jersey  judge?

Keep up the fight and maybe someday in the future things might change.

13 minutes ago, Sniper said:

Don't worry, the SCOTUS will save us, right?

 

I will keep my faith in SCOTUS until and if they prove undeserving!

21 minutes ago, Sniper said:

Don't worry, the SCOTUS will save us, right?

 

Well, the 3rd did flip. Maybe it won’t take all the way to SCOTUS. 

What has happened to our Constitutionally-guaranteed G-d-given right to keep and arm bears???

10 minutes ago, njJoniGuy said:

What has happened to our Constitutionally-guaranteed G-d-given right to keep and arm bears???

2 hours ago, voyager9 said:

Well, the 3rd did flip. Maybe it won’t take all the way to SCOTUS. 

A 3 judge panel previously upheld the ban, so the next step should've been en banc before the entire 3rd circuit. So why is only one judge now ruling on this?

 

 

7 minutes ago, FreeNJ said:

A 3 judge panel previously upheld the ban, so the next step should've been en banc before the entire 3rd circuit. So why is only one judge now ruling on this?

 

 

Because NJ sucks and the U.S. Constitution is not honored here......YOU ARE NOT IN AMERICA!