Federal Appeals Court Upholds New Jersey ‘High Capacity’ Magazine Ban

[Swordsmyth]

A three-judge panel from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled Wednesday that New Jersey’s ban on “high capacity” magazines “does not unconstitutionally burden the Second Amendment’s right to self-defense in the home.”

The two to one ruling allows the ban to stand.
In one part of its Majority Opinion, the Third Circuit panel referenced Plaintiff’s claims then rejected those with claims made by Gabby Gifford’s gun control group.
For example, the majority wrote:

Plaintiffs attempt to discount the need for the LCM ban by describing mass shootings as rare incidents, and asserting that the [“high capacity” magazine] ban burdens the rights of law-abiding gun owners to address an infrequent occurrence. The evidence adduced before the District Court shows that this statement downplays the significant increase in the frequency and lethality of these incidents.

They then reference Giffords’ group’s Amicus Brief in rejecting Plaintiff’s claims:

Despite Plaintiffs’ assertion to the contrary, New Jersey has not been spared from a mass shooting. Just days after the Act was passed, a mass shooter injured twenty-two individuals and killed one at an arts festival in Trenton. …Even if this event had not occurred, “New Jersey need not wait for its own high-fatality gun massacre before curtailing access to LCMs.” Giffords Law Ctr. Amicus Br.

The panel also rejected the plaintiff’s appeal to the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause by noting, “the compliance measures in the [“high capacity” magazine ban] do not result in either an actual or regulatory taking.”
Judge Stephanos Bibas, a Trump appointee, dissented from the majority, arguing that the ruling treats the Second Amendment as protecting second-class rights, unequal with other rights. He wrote, “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.”
Bibas noted that the majority failed to apply strict scrutiny to the magazine ban, although such scrutiny was exactly what was needed. He wrote, “I would apply strict scrutiny to any law that impairs the core Second Amendment right to defend one’s home. This law does so. And it fails strict scrutiny.” He fleshed out his position by referring to the “common use” language of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and noted that the central use of guns in “common use” is home defense. Therefore, a law that inhibits home defense must face stricter scrutiny.
Bibas further stressed that the majority looked to Heller in a way that made it applicable only to handgun bans, thus providing leeway for bans that fall outside that scope. Bibas countered, “No other right works that way. Strict scrutiny applies to laws that burden speech or religion even if they do not nearly eliminate the right to speak or believe.”
The NRA supported the plaintiff’s case against the magazine ban. And the next steps for plaintiff’s attorneys Chuck Cooper and David Thompson are to request an en banc hearing from the Third Circuit, thereafter appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States.
The case is Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs v. Attorney General New Jersey, No. 18-3170, in the United States Appeals Court for the Third Circuit.


https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...-magazine-ban/

[enhanced_deficit]

A MAGA tweet criticizing that Judge coming out by tomorrow.

You can take this prediction to the bank.

[aGameOfThrones]

“does not unconstitutionally burden the Second Amendment’s right to self-defense in the home.”

Home invader has a 15rnd mag, law abiding home owner has a 10rnd mag.

[Swordsmyth]

President Obama appointed 329 people to federal judgeships during his eight-year administration, including one Patty Shwartz, who wrote the majority opinion in a Second Amendment lawsuit upholding New Jersey’s ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds.

She wrote:
Today we address whether one of New Jersey’s responses to the rise in active and mass shooting incidents in the United States — a law that limits the amount of ammunition that may be held in a single firearm magazine to no more than ten rounds — violates the Second Amendment, the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. We conclude that it does not.
Dissenting in the case was a freshly minted circuit court judge nominated by President Trump: Stephanos Bibas (shown). Bibas is a brilliant legal mind who is not only the 15th-most-cited law professor by the Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals, and numerous state high courts, but also the fifth-most-cited professor of criminal law and procedure by professors teaching in law schools around the country.




Bibas assumed office on November 20, 2017 and chose the case the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, Inc. v. the Attorney General of the State of New Jersey to take Shwartz to task over her frivolous treatment of the Second Amendment as a second-class right not entitled to a full and robust defense against anti-gun outfits such as Everytown for Gun Safety, which defended New Jersey’s attorney general in the case.

Bibas opened his dissent declaring that “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 [your] own sense of wise policy.”

For 19 pages he not only provided a defense of the Second Amendment that obliterated Schwartz’s opinion but prepared the case for appeal to the Supreme Court. In essence, Bibas did the Supreme Court’s homework on the case, should the high court decide to review it on appeal. Here are just a few of the salient points Bibas made in his exterpation of the majority opinion in the New Jersey case:
The Second Amendment provides a right to “keep and bear Arms.” U.S. Const. amend. II. [Emphasis added.] It protects possessing arms, not just firing them. So the majority misses a key part of the Second Amendment. The analysis cannot turn on how many bullets are fired….
New Jersey has not met its burden to overcome intermediate scrutiny [the state must prove the ban serves an “important” public interest], let alone strict scrutiny [the state must prove the ban serves a “compelling” public interest]. True, the government has a compelling interest in reducing the harm from mass shootings. No one disputes that. But New Jersey has failed to show how the ban advances its interest….
The majority’s concerns are understandable. Guns kill people. States should be able to experiment with reasonable gun laws to promote public safety. And they need not wait for mass shootings before acting. The government’s and the majority’s position may thus be wise policy. But that is not for us to decide. The Second Amendment is an equal part of the Bill of Rights. And the Supreme Court has repeatedly told us not to treat it differently.
In this specific case Bibas was in the minority. But he has done his homework. He was one of the judges on the Federalist Society’s approved list of constitutionalists for the president to consider and is now tasked with correcting the majority when they go astray.

More at: https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnew...nd-class-right

[oyarde]

Home invader has a 15rnd mag, law abiding home owner has a 10rnd mag.

And america has retarded judges .

[Anti Globalist]

Not surprising coming from dirty Jersey.

[jkr]

Treason

[Swordsmyth]

Breitbart News reports that the New Jersey State Police have “refused to rule out house-to-house enforcement of the state’s ‘high capacity’ magazine ban,” in correspondence from the Garden State’s law-enforcement agency to the news organization.

As of December 11, it is a fourth-degree felony in New Jersey to possess a “large capacity ammunition magazine,” which is defined as “a box, drum, tube or other container which is capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition to be fed continuously and directly therefrom into a semi-automatic firearm.”

Breitbart News reached out to New Jersey state law-enforcement officials “to ask how they planned to enforce the newly enacted ban. We asked whether they would enforce it on a traffic-stop basis — checking magazines in firearms when they pulled over drivers for speeding, reckless driving, etc. — or whether they would enforce it by going to house-to-house to check magazine capacity in the firearms New Jersey residents kept in their homes.”

The reply is, sadly, not surprising and not at all direct.
“We do not discuss enforcement strategies,” was all the New Jersey State Police would say.
While that’s not a “yes,” it’s not a “no” either.

More at: https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnew...or-disarmament