3rd Circuit Court Says Magazine Bans Are Constitutional (WRONG)

[buckengr]

3rd Circuit Court of Appeals includes:

• Pennsylvania
• New Jersey
• Virgin Islands

Not good for us. Just one more reason why Trump MUST win in November and replace activist SCOTUS justices. If this gets appealed to SCOTUS with the current court, we are in deep trouble.

No excuses. Vote for Trump for SCOTUS and Federal judges alone.

[eagleclaw]

The 5 reasons the court cited to support that decision;

In doing so, the 3rd Circuit panel concluded the ban:

does not burden the core Second Amendment guarantee, for five reasons:
(1) it does not categorically ban a class of firearms but is rather a ban on a subset of magazines;
(2) it is not a prohibition of a class of arms overwhelmingly chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home;
(3) it does not disarm or substantially affect Americans* ability to defend themselves;
(4) New Jersey residents can still possess and use magazines, just with fewer rounds; and
(5) *it cannot be the case that possession of a firearm in the home for self-defense is a protected form of possession under all circumstances. By this rationale, any type of firearm possessed in the home would be protected merely because it could be used for self-defense.

https://libertarianhub.com/2020/09/0...e-bans-are-ok/

This goes to show courts are unpredictable and inconsistent ( being inconsistent with the recent CA ruling) when deciding 2A cases.

[Will3212]

So 10+ mags still legal in PA right.

[icp4life162005]

So 10+ mags still legal in PA right.

For now.

[Justin///M]

One court says they violate the 2a. Other courts say they don't.

If only there was a way to resolve discrepancies across the land.

[God's Country]

Obviously SCOTUS needs to resolve this.
You need no further proof of activist judges when one circuit court says bans are unconstitutional while another says they are not. That's not possible if your country truly is a land of laws and not men.

[buckengr]

From FPC:

The current appeal reached the 3rd Circuit in a somewhat “tortured procedural posture,” which is legalese for “you won’t fully understand this unless you’re a law student studying for your Civil Procedure final.” Here’s what happened: In a prior ruling on the plaintiffs’ challenge to the constitutionality of the New Jersey mag ban law, the district court denied a preliminary injunction that was being sought by the plaintiffs. That denial was appealed, and a panel of the 3rd Circuit upheld the district court’s order. The court today held that in doing so, that panel of the 3rd Circuit went beyond simply answering the question of the plaintiffs’ “likelihood of success on the merits” (part of the standard to receive a preliminary injunction) and directly addressed the constitutionality of the statute. The case was then sent back to the district court where it had originated, where that court ruled on summary judgment that it was bound by that earlier decision.

The plaintiffs then appealed that summary judgment ruling, arguing first, that the district court erred in treating the prior panel’s opinion on the constitutionality of the statute as binding, and second, reasserting plaintiffs’ belief that the statute was unconstitutional under the Second, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The majority in today’s opinion held that the plaintiffs were wrong on their first argument – i.e. that the prior panel ruling had in fact come to a binding conclusion as to the constitutionality of the law. Because they were bound to follow the prior decision, the majority said, they did not need to re-address the constitutional arguments.

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/third...capacity-limit

So basically, the judges who ruled against us either 1) didn't understand their own role w.r.t. civil procedure, or 2) willfully ignored and abused the rules of civil procedure in order to create a fucked ruling against the Constitution.

Im betting on #2.

[alpacaheat]

One court says they violate the 2a. Other courts say they don't.

If only there was a way to resolve discrepancies across the land.

Guns.

[RenoV8]

One court says they violate the 2a. Other courts say they don't.

If only there was a way to resolve discrepancies across the land.

At this point do you really care?

With all the shit going on, mag capacity is the least of my worries.

That being said...Once Trump wins re-election, the courts will decide all of this nonsense, once and for all. There are at least 20 cases to be reviewed by the court...stack em up and deep.

[c45man]

The judicial activists are opening the door to invite legislation to ban plus 6, 5, or 3 mags. Or just outlaw removable mags altogether.

Elections have consequences and too many gun owners don't give a crap who they vote for.