State Chapters > NY/NJ

Gun owners in NJ subject to new magazine ban starting Monday

(1/4) > >>

Elderberry:
Guns.com 12/10/2018 by Chris Eger

A ban on magazines capable of holding more than 10 cartridges is set to take effect in the Garden State this week.

Enacted in June by Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy after a multi-year push by state lawmakers, the new law reduces the legal maximum capacity of detachable magazines in the state from 15 to 10 rounds. Second Amendment advocates filed an immediate legal challenge to the ban, set to take effect in Dec. 10, but last week lost their challenge in the 3rd U.S. Circuit after a three-judge panel sided with the state.

More: https://www.guns.com/news/2018/12/10/gun-owners-in-nj-subject-to-new-magazine-ban-starting-monday

Elderberry:

--- Quote ---New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal characterized the ruling as a “Big win for public safety and law enforcement safety!” that upheld what he labeled a sensible law. Those found guilty of possession of a banned magazine could face as much as 18 months in prison, a fine of $10,000 per mag, and a conviction that could result in a lifetime nationwide firearms ban.
--- End quote ---

Elderberry:
Ammoland Inc. Posted on December 7, 2018 by Dean Weingarten

https://www.ammoland.com/2018/12/third-circuit-second-amendment-is-a-second-rate-right/#axzz5ZRHDN53O


--- Quote ---Third Circuit: Second Amendment is a Second Rate Right

In a split decision, a three judge panel at the Third Circuit Court of Appeals effectively ruled the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights is a second-rate right, not entitled to the full protections of other enumerated rights.  The opinion was filed on 5 December, 2018. The case is Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, Inc. v. Attorney General New Jersey, No. 18-3170 (3rd Cir. 2018).

The two majority judges followed the trend of other Circuits where the Second Amendment is being degraded and reduced to second-rate status.  Only a month ago, the First Circuit ruled the Second Amendment does not apply outside of the home.

The rogue Circuits are able to do this because the Supreme Court has been refusing to hear Second Amendment cases for nearly a decade.  The Supreme Court only hears a limited number of cases. They are not required to hear all cases.

Some Circuit courts are gutting the Second Amendment by claiming it is not really a right. Rather, they say, it is a privilege the government may regulate if the government thinks it might do some good to regulate it.  These Jurists seem embarrassed by the Second Amendment. They seem to believe their job is to limit it as much as possible, rather than to protect it as a fundamental right.

Judge Stephano Bibas wrote the dissenting opinion in the Third Circuit ruling. He is an outstanding jurist who was appointed by President Trump.  At only 49 years old, he is already the 15th most cited jurist by the Supreme Court. His resume is impressive. It is easy to see why President Trump chose to appoint him. His dissent runs to 19 pages. The first four paragraphs eviscerates the majority decision. From uscourts.gov:

    The Second Amendment is an equal part of the Bill of Rights. We must treat the right to keep and bear arms like other enumerated rights, as the Supreme Court insisted in Heller. We may not water it down and balance it away based on our own sense of wise policy. 554 U.S. at 634-35.

    Yet the majority treats the Second Amendment differently in two ways. First, it weighs the merits of the case to pick a tier of scrutiny. That puts the cart before the horse. For all other rights, we pick a tier of scrutiny based only on whether the law impairs the core right. The Second Amendment’s core is the right to keep weapons for defending oneself and one’s family in one’s home. The majority agrees that this is the core. So whenever a law impairs that core right, we should apply strict scrutiny, period. That is the case here.


--- End quote ---

Frank Cannon:
If anyone is not aware, NJ is more gun unfriendly than MA and Cali. Always has. Always will.

Jazzhead:
Doesn't the real conundrum lie in the fact that NJ already regulates magazines and requires them to hold no more than 15 rounds?   If that's a lawful regulation,  why is it Constitutionally suspect when 15 is reduced to 10?   

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page