NJ assault weapons ban ruled unconstitutional but standard magazine restrictions ruling upheld

[Saltwater60]

Big step for NJ and us.

Court Strikes Down NJ’s AR Ban, Upholds Mag Limits

(Photo: GunsAmerica) Estimated reading time: 1 minute In a big ruling this week, a U.S. District Court declared New Jersey’s ban on AR-15 rifles

www.gunsamerica.com

 

[FRANKIE]

Is the U.S District Court gonna share the love?
I know, I know
Don’t hold your breath

 

[Cavalry]

Too bad NJ is in the 3rd circuit. This would need to go all the way up the ladder to help NY

 

[dwa12479]

Still blows mind that laws.can be declared "Unconstitutional" for just a certain part of the country, despite the fact the Constitution applies to the entire Nation.

 

[ManualF150]

Still blows mind that laws.can be declared "Unconstitutional" for just a certain part of the country, despite the fact the Constitution applies to the entire Nation.

Same thing with the gun felony nonsense. A majority of the country is constitutional carry, but yet a few states can wreck your life with a felony because those states don't want to follow the rules.

 

[Depick]

Sounds like the NJ legislature will be meeting for an emergency session. Or does that only happen in NY.

 

[SonOfSun]

Same thing with the gun felony nonsense. A majority of the country is constitutional carry, but yet a few states can wreck your life with a felony because those states don't want to follow the rules.

10 A: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The states get to decide. Just because all of the states are not aligned, doesn't mean they aren't "following the rules". The rule is unless the power over a certain aspect is granted to the federal govt then each state decides on its own. By making different rules, they ARE following the rules.

This doesn't mean I agree with their decisions by the way, but it's an important distinction to make.

 

[RooftopKorean]

It's really too bad this wasn't a case like Breun that would set precedent for the entire nation.

I'd love to be able to own a full blown AR of any caliber in NY and NYC even if I was limited to 10 rounds. Hell, as it is, I can't even own a mag locked or featureless AR in the city limits or have over 5 rounds for any long gun.

I only have an SCR with (2) 5 round Magpul mags in NYC.

My AR lowers were all purchased legally in NYS then built to freedom specs in PA.

 

[ManualF150]

10 A: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The states get to decide. Just because all of the states are not aligned, doesn't mean they aren't "following the rules". The rule is unless the power over a certain aspect is granted to the federal govt then each state decides on its own. By making different rules, they ARE following the rules.

This doesn't mean I agree with their decisions by the way, but it's an important distinction to make.

However, it is set forth directly in the Constitution.

No different than NYS saying fuck you to the 1A.

 

[Dr. Evil]

So now NJ can get ready to have less rights after the court gave them back their rights like we did in NY.

 

[Darth]

10 A: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The states get to decide. Just because all of the states are not aligned, doesn't mean they aren't "following the rules". The rule is unless the power over a certain aspect is granted to the federal govt then each state decides on its own. By making different rules, they ARE following the rules.

This doesn't mean I agree with their decisions by the way, but it's an important distinction to make.

"The Supremacy Clause, Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, establishes that federal law and the Constitution are the supreme law of the land and take precedence over state laws and constitutions."

 

[Cooolone]

The contradictory ruling is befuddling...

Using the "Common" use doctrine, exempting the high capacity magazines just doesn't stand muster... They too are in common use, maybe not in NJ because made illegal, by an unconstitutional law. But the commonality cannot be denied! Same goes for HP Bullets! Doesn't stand scrutiny!

But yeah, Jersey is NY, is CA, is MA, is CT... etc!

There's basically 9 States that have their own delusional issues with items that aren't and don't pose an issue in the other 41... So it will be hard to justify their malfeasance much longer! Problem is, in order to challenge, you need to have standing, meaning you need to have been mixed up in it, charged, trial, etc. And we know how hard they work to prevent any of these cases from reaching a courtroom! The entire process is ridiculous...

Any LEGISLATURE enacts an unconstitutional law, it should be able to be challenged by the People BEFORE a Citizen gets jammed up by it! Not after the fact, not years later...

 

[Criticalt]

10 A: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The states get to decide. Just because all of the states are not aligned, doesn't mean they aren't "following the rules". The rule is unless the power over a certain aspect is granted to the federal govt then each state decides on its own. By making different rules, they ARE following the rules.

This doesn't mean I agree with their decisions by the way, but it's an important distinction to make.

The states do NOT get to override the constitution.
Things like abortion, gay marriage...... sure, they are not mentioned in the constitution, so, the state makes its own rules to a point. However, the SCOTUS is still the supreme law of the land. If a state makes an absurd law, the SCOTUS can override it even if its not in the constitution.
" Shall not be infringed " is NOT up for debate..... this is why the anti gunners don't want these cases to go to SCOTUS.......they ALWAYS lose.

 

[SonOfSun]

The states do NOT get to override the constitution.
Things like abortion, gay marriage...... sure, they are not mentioned in the constitution, so, the state makes its own rules to a point. However, the SCOTUS is still the supreme law of the land. If a state makes an absurd law, the SCOTUS can override it even if its not in the constitution.
" Shall not be infringed " is NOT up for debate..... this is why the anti gunners don't want these cases to go to SCOTUS.......they ALWAYS lose.

It's within the constitution according to the Court.

......The court, however, found the law constitutional, stating it strikes a balance between individual rights and reducing the potential harm in mass shootings.

The ruling noted, “State may regulate the permissible capacity of the large capacity magazines.”.....


Not saying I think standard capacity magazines should be banned. (I don't think they should be). However, it's important to recognize that unless the power is provided to the US govt then states decide. In the case the court decided it was within states rights.

 

[FP1201]

However, it is set forth directly in the Constitution.

No different than NYS saying fuck you to the 1A.

The difference is in NY people WILL tell the Government "Fuck You" when it comes to what they say, but say nothing when it comes to the Second.
:Never underestimate the value in a good go fuck yourself!.

 

[Darth]

It's within the constitution according to the Court.

......The court, however, found the law constitutional, stating it strikes a balance between individual rights and reducing the potential harm in mass shootings.

The ruling noted, “State may regulate the permissible capacity of the large capacity magazines.”.....


Not saying I think standard capacity magazines should be banned. (I don't think they should be). However, it's important to recognize that unless the power is provided to the US govt then states decide. In the case the court decided it was within states rights.

The problem is the power IS provided to the federal government. It's the bill of rights. It's literally THE most universal powers granted to protect the rights of all US citizens.

State's can't say "well we don't really like that 4A, so we don't abide by it here. "

Yes, even if the lower courts rule one way.

 

[RedBreast21]

So all we need is a conflicting Circuit Court decision and onto to SCOTUS. Second Circuit will meet that call.

 

[Grimscale]

Using the "Common" use doctrine, exempting the high capacity magazines just doesn't stand muster...

Using any qualifier it won't stand muster.
But didn't the judge state there were founding-era rules that supported mag restrictions?

I'd like to see what founding-era rules he was talking about.

 

[Criticalt]

It's within the constitution according to the Court.

......The court, however, found the law constitutional, stating it strikes a balance between individual rights and reducing the potential harm in mass shootings.

The ruling noted, “State may regulate the permissible capacity of the large capacity magazines.”.....


Not saying I think standard capacity magazines should be banned. (I don't think they should be). However, it's important to recognize that unless the power is provided to the US govt then states decide. In the case the court decided it was within states rights.

In both Heller and Bruin the SCOTUS says intrest balancing is a no go.
Again, the SCOTUS is the supreme law of the land. Just because a lower...or inferior....court says something is constitutional, does NOT mean that it is constitutional. This law, as all the others will find out when/if they make it to SCOTUS. These lower courts have been playing games the last few years. They are purposely stretching out these cases so they don't make it to SCOTUS.....why?
Because there is a 0% chance their rulings will pass muster.....and they know it.
Over the last month alone Thomas, Alito and Kavanaugh have mentioned this in their decisions. All three have WARNED the inferior courts to heed their warning.....get to work on these cases and make a decicion.
The ONLY reason these justices have brought this up, is because they are hungry to rule on these cases. Thomas recently said, the SCOTUS needs to flesh out some of these gun cases and make STRONG decisions with wording that can not be misunderstood. In other words, they want to FINALLY let the inferior courts know that the SCOTUS will not tolerate the nonsense.

 

[dwa12479]

10 A: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The states get to decide. Just because all of the states are not aligned, doesn't mean they aren't "following the rules". The rule is unless the power over a certain aspect is granted to the federal govt then each state decides on its own. By making different rules, they ARE following the rules.

This doesn't mean I agree with their decisions by the way, but it's an important distinction to make.

SO LONG AS the rules the states set pass constituional muster. Direct violation of the Bills of Rights is not a "States Rights" issue, its a "Peoples Rights" issue. Governments derive their power from the consent of the governed.

 

[Celt]

The mag ban should be an easy appeal as the Bruen decision clearly made "text, history and tradition the standard for finding 2a issues Constitutional or not. The court saying its balancing public safety should be an easy win!

 

[spat]

It's within the constitution according to the Court.

......The court, however, found the law constitutional, stating it strikes a balance between individual rights and reducing the potential harm in mass shootings.

The ruling noted, “State may regulate the permissible capacity of the large capacity magazines.”.....


Not saying I think standard capacity magazines should be banned. (I don't think they should be). However, it's important to recognize that unless the power is provided to the US govt then states decide. In the case the court decided it was within states rights.

Bruen specifically ruled that such "interest balancing" is not appropriate.

It is not the courts place to consider why the state wants the law. The only thing that the court is allowed to consider for a 2A case is "text and tradition".

Everything else should have been completely inadmissible. The utility of the law to prevent *any* other crimes, mass shooting, 9/11 part 2, or anything is simply irrelevant.

 

[RedBreast21]

".. SCOTUS is the supreme law of the land."

Be careful, as that statement acknowledges that SCOTUS creates law. Which it does not. The left wing media wants all to believe that but it just isn't true. I know you know better but words should be carefully chosen. SCOTUS interprets existing laws against the Constitution and Bill of Rights for the constitutionality of the law. Their personal opinions should be excluded. But of course in the Trump ruling Sotoymayor showed her true colors and her true intent as a member of SCOTUS. This is called judicial activism and the court shouldn't allow it.

A Constitutional convention is the only method to change, modify or add to the Constitution. Could we see a day where 2A is removed? Yes. With every generation that gets indoctrinated. The fight gentlemen, isn't bullets. It's a fight of ideas, truths and the minds of the young.

 

[Saltwater60]

The mag ban should be an easy appeal as the Bruen decision clearly made "text, history and tradition the standard for finding 2a issues Constitutional or not. The court saying its balancing public safety should be an easy win!

I fear the question is are mags covered u see the second amendment. I say yes but will they.

 

[Criticalt]

Be careful, as that statement acknowledges that SCOTUS creates law. Which it does not. The left wing media wants all to believe that but it just isn't true. I know you know better but words should be carefully chosen. SCOTUS interprets existing laws against the Constitution and Bill of Rights for the constitutionality of the law. Their personal opinions should be excluded. But of course in the Trump ruling Sotoymayor showed her true colors and her true intent as a member of SCOTUS. This is called judicial activism and the court shouldn't allow it.

A Constitutional convention is the only method to change, modify or add to the Constitution. Could we see a day where 2A is removed? Yes. With every generation that gets indoctrinated. The fight gentlemen, isn't bullets. It's a fight of ideas, truths and the minds of the young.

Not my words, but the exact words used in Article 111, section 11 of the constitution of the United States.
The SCOTUS was specifically formed to keep states from overreach and hurting the nation.
And nowhere did I even suggest that the SCOTUS "creates law".
My very words convey that they support the constitution and our founding fathers ideas for this nation and interpret the constitution when inferior courts get it wrong.... by accident or on purpose.
From Article 111 section 11
"The compromise was that, just as the Constitution and federal laws would be the “supreme Law of the Land,” there would definitely be a Supreme Court—so a court created by the federal government, with judges appointed by the President, would get the last word, in case state courts did something that was too threatening to the new nation. But the extent and shape of the rest of the federal court system—the degree to which the federal government would be present around the nation—would get hashed out in day-to-day politics. The result is the large and powerful federal judiciary we have today."

 

[Grimscale]

I fear the question is are mags covered u see the second amendment. I say yes but will they.

I have a simple test.

I have a rifle with a magazine since I believe it is covered under "arms".

They can have a rifle without a magazine.

We see who wins.

Edit for the 3-letter bootlickers: No, I'm not planning on doing anything. This is hyperbole (yes, I know it's a 4 syllable word. Get your mommy to explain it to you).

 

[Acer-m14]

10 A: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The 2A is regulated by the Constitution itself.

no power is or was given in the 2A to anyone to regulate it.

it was Stolen by the GCA and the NFA

 

[Acer-m14]

@Grimscale

Is a pouch of 20 musket ball considered a high cap mag ( pouch )

 

[Acer-m14]

......The court, however, found the law constitutional, stating it strikes a balance between individual rights and reducing the potential harm in mass shootings.

and the Court is Wrong ... AGAIN

 

[Grimscale]

@Grimscale

Is a pouch of 20 musket ball considered a high cap mag ( pouch )

Naw.... sounds like standard capacity, or reduced capacity, to me.