Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« Never, in the long history of human stupidity..... | Main | Problem solved »

Third Circuit upholds NJ's ban on magazines holding more than ten rounds.

Posted by David Hardy · 5 December 2018 02:41 PM

In Ass'n of N.J. Rifle and Pistol Clubs v. Attorney General.

The case is quite well laid-out for an anti-2A result, tho I course like the dissent better:

"Yet the majority treats the Second Amendment differently in two ways. First, it weighs the merits of the case to pick a tier of scrutiny. That puts the cart before the horse. For all other rights, we pick a tier of scrutiny based only on whether the law impairs the core right. The Second Amendment's core is the right to keep weapons for defending oneself and one's family in one's home. The majority agrees that this is the core. So whenever a law impairs that core right, we should apply strict scrutiny, period. That is the case here.

Second, though the majority purports to use intermediate scrutiny, it actually recreates the rational-basis test forbidden by Heller. It suggests that this record favors the government, but make no mistake--that is not what the District Court found. The majority repeatedly relies on evidence that the District Court did not rely on and expert testimony that the District Court said was "of little help." 2018 WL 4688345, at *8. It effectively flips the burden of proof onto the challengers...."

3 Comments | Leave a comment

Fyooz | December 6, 2018 4:20 PM | Reply

so is this heading to the SupCt with Kavanaugh one of now 4 probable votes to grant cert?

FWB | December 7, 2018 7:10 AM | Reply

You do realize that the SC CAUSED all these state level problems when they (John Marshall) screwed up the entire meaning of the Bill of Rights in Barron (1833). Marshall, ever the idiot, missed the entire supremacy clause, because he was a corrupt judge trying to usurp power for the courts. Look at the troubles he caused simply because he would not be honest.

Madison's intent was/is totally irrelevant since those who ratified the Bill of Rights chose to add the amendments to the end and NOT to screw with the original document. Madison was another ejit when he proposed inserting clauses willy nilly within the original writing.

Anonymous | December 7, 2018 9:15 AM | Reply

FWB, yes I do. However, this is the world we woke up in today.

The Federalists won. If they hadn't, the Anti-Federalists would have, and we'd still have an abusive government because that's what governments become. There is no structural remedy.

Leave a comment