Ocean State Tactical vs Neronha (Rhode Island Fed court, Mag Limit case) Update AWB proposed

Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Messages
15,541
Likes
9,524
This is the most recent filing. This case has direct impact on people in RI and will have a direct impact on Massachusetts when it gets to the 1st circuit court of appeals.

Remember under NYSRPA vs bruen, SCOTUS said any gun law has to be similar to gun laws in 1791 or 1868. The oldest mag limit was NJ in 1990. Good luck with the history argument there.


View: https://twitter.com/2Aupdates/status/1581055594949070848?s=20&t=JLIyUrYkjdI3T9fdTZfVgw


This section is hilarious


View: https://twitter.com/gunpolicy/status/1581055322688348160?s=20&t=JLIyUrYkjdI3T9fdTZfVgw
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Messages
15,541
Likes
9,524
The state knows they're gonna lose, so expect them to stall as much as possible.

I think RI will lose in the district court, I’m not so sure in the 1st circuit court of appeals. The 1st embarrasses themselves often, we’ll see if they respect NYSRPA
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Messages
15,541
Likes
9,524
the outright denial and ignoring of scotus rulings is not an 'embarrassment', it is a policy.

Agreed.

If they could feel shame, it would be embarrassing. It’s amazing how often the 1st circuit is unanimous 3-0 on a case only to be reversed 9-0 by SCOTUS. They’re so out of touch they couldn’t even get sotomayor
 

paul73

NES Member
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Oct 30, 2020
Messages
10,424
Likes
12,156
Location
MA
So according to idiot ass RI they concede the weapons are protected under Heller but the standard magazines that they come with, and always HAVE come with are unusual and therefore not protected like the guns themselves!?! Good luck with that Neronha
you will see - next will be ammo, bullets, primers and brass. any way imaginable to make sure the gun will not be legally allowed to remain in the operational and ready to fire state.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Messages
15,541
Likes
9,524
I’m goi
the outright denial and ignoring of scotus rulings is not an 'embarrassment', it is a policy.

Have you read the brief from RI? Magazines are not protected by 2A because they’re just accessories. Mags over 10 rounds are dangerous and unusual and meant for “warfare”, have no self defense purpose etc. RI also claims capacity restrictions date back to the 1800s. The first mag restriction was NJ in 1990

The brief is absurd
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Messages
15,541
Likes
9,524
So according to idiot ass RI they concede the weapons are protected under Heller but the standard magazines that they come with, and always HAVE come with are unusual and therefore not protected like the guns themselves!?! Good luck with that Neronha

I like how she (a deputy AG write the brief) insists mags are accessories this not protected. A scope is an accessory, a pistol without a mag is a paper weight.
 

SFC13557

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Aug 2, 2019
Messages
3,447
Likes
4,274
Location
Central Ma.
I’m goi


Have you read the brief from RI? Magazines are not protected by 2A because they’re just accessories. Mags over 10 rounds are dangerous and unusual and meant for “warfare”, have no self defense purpose etc. RI also claims capacity restrictions date back to the 1800s. The first mag restriction was NJ in 1990

The brief is absurd
Of course it is because they made it up, typical Leftists tactic. They only recognize laws, rulings they agree with and live in their fictional bubble.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Messages
15,541
Likes
9,524
Of course it is because they made it up, typical Leftists tactic. They only recognize laws, rulings they agree with and live in their fictional bubble.

Page 6 RI talks about early regulations of the amount of gun powder one could have at their home, these were from the 1700s which fit SCOTUS date periods. Those are not limits on ownership though, just fire code type storage requirements. Then RI talks about actual gun control, carry restrictions, 1893 and machine gun ban 1927.

SCOTUS said the dates are 1791 and 1868 so after that is not relevant. That’s the massive problem for gun controllers regarding NYSRPA, nearly every gun control law is very modern and not historical.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Messages
15,541
Likes
9,524
Preliminary injunction denied. This judge is a fricken moron,

LCMs are not are, not used for self defense, ban on non cripple mags is common sense and not part of the core of the second amendment. This isn’t on the merits of the case but it’s clear when this idiot rules on that, he’s upholding the mag ban. Then it’s on to the 1st circuit court of appeals which doesn’t have a single active GOP nominated judge and routinely is overturned by SCOTUS




One of the cases SCOTUS granted vacated and remanded after NYSRPA was Duncan vs bonta, a mag limit case from California. Obviously if SCOTUS thought mags were not protected, they could have left that opinion from the 9th circuit alone. The judge here is clearly uses the 2 step interest balancing test SCOTUS explicitly said was not to be done.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Messages
15,541
Likes
9,524
Unbelievable

He’s literally ignoring SCOTUS completely and using interest balancing. For those not familiar anti 2A courts used a 2 step process for cases. Does the law implement the 2nd amendment. If yes, does the state (government) have a good reason to violate the constitution (yes they do, public safety)
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Messages
15,541
Likes
9,524
He's clearly acting like a Nazi.

Obama judge. This is from his Wikipedia bio. “ McConnell was active in politics, serving as the treasurer of the Rhode Island Democratic State Committee for fourteen years, chairing David Cicilline's mayoral campaign from 2003 to 2009, and serving as a member of the Board of Directors of Rhode Island's Planned Parenthood branch for four years.”
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Messages
15,541
Likes
9,524
Judge nakedly making a mockery of the Constitution and flipping his floppy bits at SCotUS as a political actor. It's going to make it harder for the 1st Circuit to uphold because his reasoning has zero basis in anything other than, "I DRESS UP IN BLACK ROBES AND SAID SO!".

It could allow the 1st panel to sit on it forever. There is no injunction so the law will go into effect, so the 1st sitting on it allows it to stay an active law.
 

Lokdog

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Sep 2, 2016
Messages
1,218
Likes
1,982
Location
North Kingstown RI
It could allow the 1st panel to sit on it forever. There is no injunction so the law will go into effect, so the 1st sitting on it allows it to stay an active law.
And that's exactly what these clowns want. No skin off of their sack. They know it's going to take forever to work its way through the system and the whole time an unconstitutional law gets to hem people up. Really sucks there are no repercussions for these idiots when they blatantly violate people's rights just because.
 

Parker Schreiber

NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Sep 29, 2020
Messages
1,092
Likes
1,562
One of the cases SCOTUS granted vacated and remanded after NYSRPA was Duncan vs bonta, a mag limit case from California. Obviously if SCOTUS thought mags were not protected, they could have left that opinion from the 9th circuit alone. The judge here is clearly uses the 2 step interest balancing test SCOTUS explicitly said was not to be done.
I disagree. Since the 9th circuit applied so-called "intermediate scrutiny," and the Court explicitly rejected that analysis, a remand was pretty much automatic.
 

hunt4riches

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
May 12, 2013
Messages
1,561
Likes
1,889
I'm tired of the 'common use' bit. One of these judges needs to quantify that, then when exceeded, strike down all the bans accordingly. There must be some major dirt packed away in some doomsday-proof bunker somewhere on these judges, else I otherwise do not understand their persistence.
 
Last edited:

M1911

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
27   0   0
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
42,182
Likes
12,470
Location
Near Framingham
He’s literally ignoring SCOTUS completely and using interest balancing. For those not familiar anti 2A courts used a 2 step process for cases. Does the law implement the 2nd amendment. If yes, does the state (government) have a good reason to violate the constitution (yes they do, public safety)
That was my impression from the press reports — that he was using interest balancing even though SCOTUS said you can’t do that.
 

Waher

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 2, 2014
Messages
29,435
Likes
59,812
Location
☦️
It could allow the 1st panel to sit on it forever. There is no injunction so the law will go into effect, so the 1st sitting on it allows it to stay an active law.
My first thought was this is egregious enough to get the SCotUS Justice overseeing the 1st Circuit to intercede. Then I remembered Ketanji Brown Jackson was given the assignment. So our hopes would rest on John Roberts getting miffed that some low level judge took a dump on his desk/left an upper decker, banged his wife, and threw his keys on the roof SCotUS reputation wise with this stunt.
 
Top Bottom