|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
NJ: Federal court upholds NJ ban on large-capacity gun magazines
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
For a second time, a federal appeals court has shot down a New Jersey gun club's attempt to have the state's ban on large-capacity magazines declared unconstitutional.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit again upheld a 2018 New Jersey law that banned magazines with 10 rounds or more of ammunition. The appellate panel agreed with the District Court ruling that the ban was a "reasonable" gun regulation enacted in response to mass shootings, and did not violate the citizen's right to bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(9/5/2020)
|
| Weyulp, unless the 9th Circus en banc court reverses the panel, we will have a circuit split. 'S'pose the SCOTUS would then grant certiorari? |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
