Supreme court case against NJ magazine restriction

Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jun 20, 2017
Messages
133
Likes
90

kieron

NES Member
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
Messages
102
Likes
172
Location
Middlesex County, MA
Glad to see Cameron's use of "commonly-used" magazines, but 2A advocates have already surrendered too much ground by accepting the designation of "high-capacity" for 20-30 round magazines. Those are "standard-capacity" not the neutered 10 round "low-capacity" magazines currently being touted as the norm.
 

Parker Schreiber

NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Sep 29, 2020
Messages
1,155
Likes
1,645

Reptile

NES Member
Rating - 100%
117   0   0
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
24,368
Likes
15,900
When is thew SCOTUS suppose to hear this case?

Or, did they already hear it?

When are they supposed to decide?

I know cases get decided in June.
 
Rating - 100%
115   0   0
Joined
Mar 23, 2011
Messages
9,073
Likes
8,931
Location
Breathing free in Tennessee!
Glad to see Cameron's use of "commonly-used" magazines, but 2A advocates have already surrendered too much ground by accepting the designation of "high-capacity" for 20-30 round magazines. Those are "standard-capacity" not the neutered 10 round "low-capacity" magazines currently being touted as the norm.
In my not even remotely humble opinion, my 60 round AR schmeisser and 75 round AK drums are "standard" capacity. If I had the $ I'd have 100 round betas for all of my AR's. 10 rounders are door stops down here in FreeMerica.
 

MaverickNH

NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Nov 24, 2005
Messages
6,599
Likes
5,570
Location
SoNH

"While some may write the Second Amendment off as a relic of a bygone era, in reality, the ability to defend one’s self remains essential to millions of Americans. As the Ninth Circuit recently explained, “[o]ur country’s history has shown that communities of color have a particularly compelling interest in exercising their Second Amendment rights.” Duncan v. Becerra, 970 F.3d 1133, 1155 (9th Cir. 2020), reh’g en banc granted, opinion vacated, 988 F.3d 1209 (9th Cir. 2021). The same is true for women; guns can allow women to protect themselves more effectively against “abusers and assailants.”

True as it may be, I find playing the race or gender card a bit opportunist in today’s identity politics climate. Gun bans are equal under the law, just not "equitable" in application, as they impact only law-abiding citizens.

"... when New Jersey enacted such a statewide and retroactive ban on the mere possession of the Affected Magazines, it destroyed the core of the Second Amendment right. And when such destruction occurs, interests should not be balanced.3

3 This, of course, does not mean that New Jersey cannot regulate the possession or use of Affected Magazines if such regulations are consistent with prior longstanding regulations on the right to keep and bear arms."

And that footnote bothers me - the next steps are regulation that are, in all practical sense, near total bans, as are the May Issue laws in several states. In the decade plus since Heller and McDonald, how many $$$ Millions of tax dollars has government spent attempting enforce foot dragging restrictions and limitations on these SCOTUS decisions, not to mention the private $$$ Millions NRA, GOA, SAF have spent litigating such cases?

When you poked your finger an inch from you little sister, and said "but I’m not touching her", your Mom smacked you upside the head for not following the intent of "stop touching your sister." Only the voters can smack Shall Issue and de facto ban CA, CT, DE, NJ. NY, MA, MD, RI, HI state elected officials upside the head, and those Democrat stronghold states are not about to do so.
 
Last edited:

rickflst

NES Member
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Joined
Sep 18, 2016
Messages
375
Likes
273
Location
Western PROM
When you poked your finger an inch from you little sister, and said "but I’m not touching her", your Mom smacked you upside the head for not following the intent of "stop touching your sister." Only the voters can smack Shall Issue and de facto ban CA, CT, DE, NJ. NY, MA, MD, RI, HI state elected officials upside the head, and those Democrat stronghold states are not about to do so.
Well said
 

strangenh

NES Member
Rating - 100%
37   0   0
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
8,504
Likes
5,868
Location
NH
"3 This, of course, does not mean that New Jersey cannot regulate the possession or use of Affected Magazines if such regulations are consistent with prior longstanding regulations on the right to keep and bear arms."

And that footnote bothers me - the next steps are regulation that are, in all practical sense, near total bans, as are the May Issue laws in several states. In the decade plus since Heller and McDonald, how many $$$ Millions of tax dollars has government spent attempting enforce foot dragging restrictions and limitations on these SCOTUS decisions, not to mention the private $$$ Millions NRA, GOA, SAF have spent litigating such cases?
...and the actual content of that Amicus brief may well explain why NH didn't sign on.

(My read on that footnote: They are undercutting a full-strength position in anticipation of a level of scrutiny - not quite strict - probably as part of a fallback position should the Court fall onto something that isn't quite strict scrutiny. Usually these are layers of argument, where the Court isn't going to reach a lot of the questions... but if the Court would reject the argument that any mag regulation is anti-2A, then of course the AGs in these other states do not want the Court to decide to let the ban stand, so there's a fallback position. Mind, this is an Amicus brief; it's not the Association of NJ Rifle and Pistol Club's brief. "With friends like these...?")
 
Top Bottom