The US Third Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in a 2-1 opinion that New Jersey’s law limiting magazine capacity to ten rounds doesn’t violate the Second Amendment rights of Garden Staters.
From the Washington Times:
“New Jersey’s law reasonably fits the state’s interest in public safety and does not unconstitutionally burden the Second Amendment’s right to self-defense in the home,” wrote 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Patty Shwartz, an Obama-appointee.
An “Obama appointee?” Wait, I thought that identifying judges that way was tendentious and ignores the fact that all judges rule only on the merits of the cases in front of them. The fact that the majority judges here were both Obama appointees must be just a coincidence. Go figure.
For the entire 62 page ruling, click here. The majority judges bought into the argument that magazine changes give potential victims a chance to escape.
“The record demonstrates that when there are pauses in shooting to reload or for other reasons, opportunities arise for victims to flee, as evidenced by the 2017 Las Vegas and 2013 D.C. Navy Yard shootings … or for bystanders to intervene, as in the 2018 Tennessee Waffle House shooting and 2011 Arizona shooting involving Representative Gabrielle Giffords,” the court ruled.
Judge Stephanos Bibas — a Trump appointee, another coincidence, I’m sure — dissented, pointing out that the majority refused to apply standard constitutional principles to the case and instead treated the Second Amendment differently than any other civil right.
Bibas observed: “The Second Amendment is an equal part of the Bill of Rights. We must treat the right to keep and bear arms like other enumerated rights, as the Supreme Court insisted in [District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)].” He rejected what he termed the majority’s “watered down“ approach to the Second Amendment.
New Jersey’s Attorney General celebrated the decision with this tweet:
Of course, New Jersey’s law carves out a special exemption for active and retired law enforcement officers, all while throwing the citizenry to the wolves. But the judges were on board with the law’s some-animals-are-more-equal provision, too.
Finally, because retired law enforcement officers have training and experience that makes them different from ordinary citizens, the law’s exemption that permits them to possess magazines that can hold more than ten rounds does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.
As a law enforcement officer, I can tell you that a good number of cops attend firearms training the same way a four-year-old goes to the dentist…kicking, screaming all the way. Too many believe that law-abiding citizens must be disarmed and be at the mercy of criminals while the state gives itself an pass. It’s appalling. Furthermore, the attitude of New Jersey’s Attorney General sounds like a Soviet Politburo member taking exception to the peasants having the audacity to want freedom.
How old is Justice Ginsburg again?