Link

A federal appeals court [the 3rd Circuit - CSM] on Wednesday ruled that a New Jersey law banning the sale of high-capacity magazines in the state does not violate the Constitution, handing a victory to gun control advocates and the state's attorney general.

The three-judge panel said in their ruling that the law limiting the size of a magazine to 10 rounds did not violate the constitutionally protected right of New Jersey residents to self defense and did not present an undue burden for gun owners who currently own magazines that would become illegal under the new law, citing their ability to obtain new magazines or register guns that cannot be modified to hold 10 shots or less.

Previous laws in the state, passed in 1990, limited magazine sizes to 15 rounds.

"New Jersey’s law reasonably fits the State’s interest in public safety and does not unconstitutionally burden the Second Amendment’s right to self-defense in the home," the court wrote.

"The law also does not violate the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause because it does not require gun owners to surrender their magazines but instead allows them to retain modified magazines or register firearms that have magazines that cannot be modified," the opinion continued.

New Jersey's Attorney General Gurbir Grewal (D) celebrated the ruling on Twitter, calling it a "[b]ig win for public safety and law enforcement safety!"

A representative for the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, which filed the lawsuit challenging New Jersey's law, called Wednesday's ruling "plainly wrong" in an emailed statement.

"This decision is plainly wrong and upholds New Jersey's unconstitutional law turning one million honest citizens into felons for keeping property obtained legally that could be used for defending their lives. The decision will be further appealed," the group's executive director, Scott Bach, told The Hill.

I believe this is the same circuit court that made a similar ruling regarding New York’s law also. I for the life of me can not understand how the Supreme Court can elect not to review or make a ruling on a case. That is essentially “ you hired us to do a job and we are allowed to not work whenever we want with absolutely no recourse”

quote:

Originally posted by captain127:
I believe this is the same circuit court that made a similar ruling regarding New York’s law also. I for the life of me can not understand how the Supreme Court can elect not to review or make a ruling on a case. That is essentially “ you hired us to do a job and we are allowed to not work whenever we want with absolutely no recourse”

NY is in the 2nd Judicial Circuit. Also, often the Supreme Court will not hear an issue until there are conflicting rulings in different circuits, so it would not be surprising if they didn't take up this issue yet.

As a resident of Colorado where they passed a 15 round limit a few years ago, I do hope it gets to SCOTUS and they grant cert.

The judges may be right that it does not violate the right of NJ residents to self defense. They have almost no rights to self defense! It is impossible to get a carry permit unless you are connected, and it is difficult and expensive just to get "permission" to buy a gun. NJ gun laws suck!
Rod

quote:

"New Jersey’s law reasonably fits the State’s interest in public safety and does not unconstitutionally burden the Second Amendment’s right to self-defense in the home," the court wrote.

"Keep and bear arms" does not limit itself to the home. Americans have the right to defend themselves wherever they may be--not just in the home.

flashguy

We need to be careful for what we wish for at SCOTUS. Personally I would feel better if President Trump was able to appoint one more justice to replace one of the leftists justices. A ruling that upholds magazine ban at SCOTUS would be devastating to our Second Amendment Rights and cause further bans at the state and local levels to spread quickly and open up to federal bans. We know almost for sure that at least 4 justices would uphold magazine bans.

Just one more step in the Gov's promise to make this the East Coast California! My time frame in which I leave this state has shrunk and I could not be more thrilled.

quote:

Originally posted by sig sailor:
The judges may be right that it does not violate the right of NJ residents to self defense. They have almost no rights to self defense! It is impossible to get a carry permit unless you are connected, and it is difficult and expensive just to get "permission" to buy a gun. NJ gun laws suck!
Rod

In other words, A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Does not really mean what it says. The language seems pretty damned clear to me!

What part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" do they find so difficult?

Yeah, I know, the assholes don't believe the constitution as written. It needs to be modified/updated to reflect more modern requirements! BULLSHIT

If they want it changed, there is a method to do so. Just get it changed. The problem with that is that it requires 37 states to agree and that ain't gonna happen.

And given the one (s) deciding which SCOTUS cases will be heard it is not likely to get a hearing/decision at that level.

Of course, things might move a little faster at SCOTUS if they actually worked 40 hours per week, for at least 50 weeks a year.

I'm sad to see the Chiefs of Police in NJ continue their attacks on the US Constitution. They are fine with restrictions so long as they are exempted. This is sad for them, because the law abiding people they gleefully take rights from are likely their greatest supporters.

Elk Hunter, an Amendment to the Constitution would require 38 states to ratify it, not 37. The requirement is for 3/4 and 3/4 of 50 is 37.5, so it would need 38.

flashguy

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:
Elk Hunter, an Amendment to the Constitution would require 38 states to ratify it, not 37. The requirement is for 3/4 and 3/4 of 50 is 37.5, so it would need 38.

flashguy

Yah, I gotta watch those finger slips better.

Thanx for the correction.

quote:

Originally posted by Elk Hunter:

quote:

Originally posted by sig sailor:
The judges may be right that it does not violate the right of NJ residents to self defense. They have almost no rights to self defense! It is impossible to get a carry permit unless you are connected, and it is difficult and expensive just to get "permission" to buy a gun. NJ gun laws suck!
Rod

In other words, A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Does not really mean what it says. The language seems pretty damned clear to me!

What part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" do they find so difficult?

Yeah, I know, the assholes don't believe the constitution as written. It needs to be modified/updated to reflect more modern requirements! BULLSHIT

If they want it changed, there is a method to do so. Just get it changed. The problem with that is that it requires 37 states to agree and that ain't gonna happen.

And given the one (s) deciding which SCOTUS cases will be heard it is not likely to get a hearing/decision at that level.

Of course, things might move a little faster at SCOTUS if they actually worked 40 hours per week, for at least 50 weeks a year.

A question. Why do the leftists in this country need to change anything in the Constitution? They seem to be having quite a bit of success curtailing our God given, constitutional rights via use of the current corrupt judiciary where up is down, left is right, cold is hot, and virtually nothing means what it actually says.

Your initial point though is well taken. The SCOTUS has already settled the first part of the 2A by confirming it recognizes an individual right. Now's the time to bash hell out of the leftist filth with the second part of the amendment ("...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed") that is so simply written that Jerry's Kids could all come to the same conclusion after reading it. SCOTUS needs to get off its ass and rule that words actually mean what they actually say.

quote:

Originally posted by ChicagoSigMan:

quote:

Originally posted by captain127:
I believe this is the same circuit court that made a similar ruling regarding New York’s law also. I for the life of me can not understand how the Supreme Court can elect not to review or make a ruling on a case. That is essentially “ you hired us to do a job and we are allowed to not work whenever we want with absolutely no recourse”

NY is in the 2nd Judicial Circuit. Also, often the Supreme Court will not hear an issue until there are conflicting rulings in different circuits, so it would not be surprising if they didn't take up this issue yet.

Not an entirely bad thing for now. I do not want USSC taking such a case until another Trump appointed justice is on the bench. Roberts seems untrustworthy.

quote:

Roberts seems untrustworthy.

Seems!?!?

Hell, I think he more than proved it with his past behavior.

Justice Roberts has been solid on both the Second Amendment and immigration law in the past but I sure would feel better with another originalist justice also though we may not have the luxury of waiting for that.

https://www.breitbart.com/poli...ny-starting-tuesday/

The possession of “high capacity” magazines will be a fourth degree felony in New Jersey beginning Tuesday morning.

Gov. Phil Murphy (D) signed the ban on magazines holding over 10 rounds in June, and it takes effect December 11.

The Conservative Review reports:

When the clock strikes midnight Tuesday morning, anyone in New Jersey who owns a magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition is officially in possession of illegal contraband and is deemed a fourth-degree felon.

Unlike previous magazine bans, this one retroactively bans people from even owning such magazines in their homes, even though they had been purchased legally.

I doubt that many will be turned in or disposed of.

quote:

Originally posted by ChicagoSigMan:

quote:

Originally posted by captain127:
I believe this is the same circuit court that made a similar ruling regarding New York’s law also. I for the life of me can not understand how the Supreme Court can elect not to review or make a ruling on a case. That is essentially “ you hired us to do a job and we are allowed to not work whenever we want with absolutely no recourse”

NY is in the 2nd Judicial Circuit. Also, often the Supreme Court will not hear an issue until there are conflicting rulings in different circuits, so it would not be surprising if they didn't take up this issue yet.

The justices decide what cases to grant certiorari to, which is a fancy way of saying they get to decide which cases come before them.

For RKBA advocates, it may be a good thing that the Court, in its pre-Trump configuration, did not take up the issue and set a definitive anti-gun precedent. It's true that we got Heller under via Scalia, but there are even more "conservative" justices on the Court now.

Sometimes, even when there are circuit splits, it's better to delay a fight you cannot win until you have the votes/justices to win it (and the case with the right facts/appellants).

Not that I'm gloating, or even anything like it, but here in problem-ridden UK we can have any size magazine we can find...without having to register our guns........

Oh, wait a minute, our guns are ALREADY registered. Fergit I said anything, OK?