New Jersey: Third Circuit Panel Upholds 10-Round Magazine Capacity Limits

New Jersey Magazine Capacity Limit Third District Ruling


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?


  1. avatar anarchyst says:

    I am surprised that an “equal protection” argument wasn’t used. “Carve outs” for “certain” citizens IS Constitutionally offensive.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Nonetheless, the argument has failed every time it has been raised. In gun banner circuits, of course. It just doesn’t come up elsewhere.

    2. avatar DDay says:

      “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”

      LOL Cops have training and experience? This dopey judge has no clue. Other than SWAT or other special divisions, the average cop has FAR less experience or training than the average gun owner.

      1. avatar GS650G says:

        if that was really a concern they would offer a path for “citizens” to take tactical classes on par with police for the “right” to carry what they wanted. But it’s not about training, it’s about being on the payroll and taking orders from the politburo.

    3. avatar frank speak says:

      exempting the cops [and ex-cops] leaves this ruling open to challenge….

  2. avatar Parnell says:

    What an absolute joke! If LEOs and retired LEOs were so competent in the use of firearms, why would they need 5 more rounds than me? NJ reduced magazine limits to 15 rounds and said that was a sufficient move for public safety. Now, 10 rounds is the magic wand. What’s next, the NY SAFE ACT?

  3. avatar Ken says:

    “The record demonstrates that when there are pauses in shooting to reload or for other reasons, opportunities arise for victims to flee”

    Doesn’t this also give a bunch of home invaders a chance to kill you.

    1. avatar EWTHeckman says:

      Shhhh… We can’t have the full fair and balanced facts disturbing those unbalanced (aka, bigoted) minds.

    2. avatar Ransom says:

      Excellent point!

    3. avatar Ransom says:

      And LEOs working as a team could carry stunted mags and call out “reloading” knowing their ass is covered. Us little people don’t have that advantage.

  4. Really?!? How much is to much before every red-blooded American that believes in Freedom and Liberty 🗽 takes a stand! Personally any of these Deep State: Anti-2nd Amendment/Anti-Bill of Rights Architects and Judicial puppets NEED prison a treasonous snakes!

    1. avatar WARFAB says:

      Heck, even the French would be rioting by now. 😉

      1. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

        Maybe the 2A-supporting OFWGs just can’t find yellow vests in their size?

    2. avatar Michael in AK says:

      The tree of liberty desperately needs refreshing…..we just need some leadership.

    3. avatar John says:

      Yeah right, I”ll surrender my 60 rnd mags to them. In your friggin dreams. 10 rnds, don’t have a single one. If your going to ignore the LEFT, do in a big way. And hope that old bat in the Supremes gives it up to one of OUR right wing judges

  5. avatar TheUnspoken says:

    So what’s next for this one, will it be a appealed to the Supreme Court? It seems if they don’t rule to overturn this, it will only be a matter of time before most states limit mag sizes.

  6. avatar Cloudbuster says:

    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.

    If magazine changes give victims a chance to escape, that logically means they also give criminals a chance to kill you, when you’re defending yourself with a gun.

    Sounds like a wash to me. But that’s beside the point. “Shall not be infringed” means “shall not be infringed.” Dictating how many rounds you can have in your gun is unequivocably an infringement. The second amendment provides for no “undue burden” test.

    1. avatar tdiinva says:


      The Constitution says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. How does a 10 round magazine stop you from keeping and bearing arms? Repeating the Second Amendment is not by itself an answer. If that is your only answer you would probably lose at the SCOTUS level even with the composition of this Court.

      I think there is an answer to be found that would satisfy the Court.

      1. avatar barnbwt says:

        “Infringe” does not mean “to stop utterly.” It is a much broader term that encompasses all direct interference in the activity. Banning bank loans for firearms might pass muster, banning the sale of firearms would not. Likewise, mandating purchase would be classified as an infringement.

      2. avatar GS650G says:

        If a gun was never made with a smaller capacity magazine the restriction renders it illegal unless smaller magazines are produced. That’s possible with many guns but not all so you’re effectively disarming people of guns that now are illegal. They won’t grandfather them in because they can’t so it’s a ban.

        From a practical point of view it doesn’t matter much since magazines can be changed quickly or more than one gun carried. But we all know it’s not going to save any lives, it’s about moving towards other goals.

        1. avatar tdiinva says:

          You provide the best rationale. The State is claiming that their constraint increases public safety without reducing ability to defend yourself. I think it would be sufficient to show that this is false. Empirically, the Parkland and Columbine shooters used 10 round magazines and at Sandy Hook the shooter dropped the magazines when they were about half expended. You could also demonstrate that you can fire more rounds than you engage targets even with 10 round magazine. Therefore the justification for a limit does not do what it says and is merely arbitrary limit and therefore comstitues an unreasonable infringement.

          In adfition, in today’s environment Miller is our friend. Miller says that the government can ban or restrict weapons with no military purpose. Standard capacity magazines have a military purpose and constitutes militia equipment. Thrrefore, arbitrary restrictions infringe on the efficiency of the unorganized Militia.

      3. avatar Ing says:

        Let’s extend that line of reasoning. If a ten-round limit doesn’t impair the right to keep and bear arms, how about a one-round limit? Or a requirement that all arms be carried unloaded?

        The answer is twofold.

        1. “Arms,” by definition, have to be useful for combat.

        A firearm with no ammunition is just a gun-shaped object, not an arm; it is useless. A firearm with a restricted amount of ammunition — when the non-law-abiding antagonist obeys no such limit — also is diminished in its usefulness.

        The question then becomes, how much can the usefulness of firearms to law-abiding individuals be diminished within the bounds of the law?

        2. The operative clause of the Second Amendment is clear in this regard: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

        Magazines with a higher capacity would be available to New Jerseyites (Jerseyans?) if not for the restrictive law and are available almost everywhere else, so the law is, ipso facto, an infringement. SHALL NOT is a commandment.

        And that should be the end of it. But progressive judges make decisions on ideology, not logic or legal precedent, and progressives in general have the magical power to redefine concepts (like infringement) that have been coded into language and law for centuries in the blink of an eye.

        1. avatar GS650G says:

          Exactly. Government has no right to dictate limits on your self defense. They don’t limit LE after all.

        2. avatar John says:

          i like how the antis want to say that RESTRICTIONS on the second amendment are ok. I find it very interesting that no other amendment holds the very descriptive words ‘shall not be infringed’. Appears pretty obvious the founding fathers were worried about the very thing we are. I fail to understand the confusion on this. Willful ignorance is the only explanation.

      4. avatar Cloudbuster says:

        You can own a printing press, but you can only print in two colors. You can own a TV station, but you can only broadcast in Black and White. You can say whatever you want on a street corner, but not in principle on a website, because a website is neither speech nor a press.

        Magazine limits are the same sort of technical infringement we would never accept on the first amendment.

        You are playing by their rules. That guarantees that no matter whether you think you win or lose, they win.

        A wise man once said that American conservatism does nothing more than conserve yesterday’s progressive victories.

        1. avatar Cloudbuster says:

          ^not in PRINT.

          I hate the loss of the edit function

  7. avatar st381183 says:

    I’m tired of being outraged for NJ and Ca. They vote leftists into office and then expect favorable pro gun rulings, policies and laws to win the day. 😞

    1. avatar WARFAB says:

      If we lived in a Democracy where 51% of the population can vote away the rights of the other 49% I would agree. We’re supposed to live in a constitutional republic where our rights can’t be voted away by anyone. The fact that they are being voted away in certain states should be concerning to people no matter what state they live in.

      1. avatar EWTHeckman says:

        That just goes to prove that John Adams was absolutely correct.

        “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
        — John Adams

        That means that eventually that avarice and ambition will have to be dealt with—a severely unpleasant series of events I sincerely hope can be avoided. But they seem so damnably insistent on it.

      2. avatar Baldwin says:

        What’s the problem? The court was only referring to “ordinary” rights. It’s not like they were attacking something important like the Bill of Rights….oops! My bad.

      3. avatar GS650G says:

        I agree, the idea behind a constitution was to prevent mob rule which we have right now. It’s also a hard thing to change to prevent fads from becoming the supreme law of the land.
        Now we have social media style campaigns that masquerade as constitutional conventions.

    2. avatar Razorback says:

      What State do you live in?
      You know just 2 years ago a bunch of “you” types over in Nevada were boasting about THEIR laws versus CA laws and how Californians trying to buy stuff legally for sale in Nevada should be denied because they didn’t deserve it!
      Well guess what… now just 2 years later beloved stronghold of gun freedom NEVADA just voted in an entire Democrat govenment! You what the new governor said was first on hs agenda? That’s right – “assault rifle.”
      And a bunch of other gun-haven States have been steadily following CA’s lead while ALL YOU A-HOLES currently in “free States” act like jackasses with your smug remarks! We buddy, get ready cause soon they’ll be taking away YOUR stuff and when you should have stood with the rest of us you were too busy being an a$$ hole.

      1. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

        Slave state people don’t vote regularly. That’s their problem. They show up in presidential years in droves, but so do the liberals. So they get outvoted. In off year elections, where you have House and Senate races, mayoral and gubernatorial races, and state legislature and other statewide races, both liberal and conservative voter turnout falls off, BUT conservatives fall off much more than liberals.

        Thus, liberals always win unless it’s a state that’s overwhelming conservative and enough to overcome their laziness. If you would just get off your butts and vote every election, you’d win back you states. You won’t because you don’t. So suck it.

        1. avatar GS650G says:

          Before spouting off you need to check the voter registration records of these states. I doubt there are huge numbers of Rs out there to be registered, it’s probably the other way with all the immigration in recent years.

        2. avatar Napresto says:

          Sorry to hear you think “us people” are too lazy to win. Helpful advice. I’ll file it where it belongs.

      2. avatar SoCalJack says:

        Dude. I am at a point where I don’t need empathy or “supportive words” from commenters from free states and they can keep blaming CA all they want. For CA, NY, HI, NJ, MA, CT, MD, IL, RI, PA, CO, DC, it’s going to keep getting worse whenever the US has another mass shooting. Is your free state next to be stripped of your 2A rights? Fight now, not later. How do we fight? We vote, comunicate with your local Gov, teach our youth to shoot straight and safe, bring a moderate or liberal shooting, engage them in rational conversation if possible, support your LGS, donate to your state’s gun right groups, hit the range as often as possible, talk to your fellow POTG face-to-face whenever you have a chance, stay informed, get folks who shoot once a year to go more often to the range and carry on smartly.

    3. avatar napresto says:

      Keep in mind that those of us who care about the 2A but live in restrictive states like CA, NJ (or in my case, NY) actually DO vote for pro 2A, pro freedom candidates (always). It’s just that we’re totally overwhelmed by the environment in which we live. You could try having a little empathy. It’s CA, NJ, NY folk who suffer so much abuse at the hands of our political “betters” time and again, vote against those people reliably, lose almost every time, and then get told that no one has any sympathy for us because we bring it on ourselves. Keep in mind that the little bit of winning that we do manage, particularly in house elections, is the only thing standing between YOU and states like NY and CA having even MORE power over you at the federal level.

      1. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

        See above. You people vote conservative, but you only vote sporadically. I’ve run those numbere many times in here. I’m sick of it now. Vote in the off years, not just the high profile presidential years, and take back your states. You have the numbers, just not the motivation, even in places like MD and NJ.

        1. avatar EWTHeckman says:

          To add to that, I would say it’s also critical to vote in the primaries. If you want to be sure a Constitutionally sound candidate is in the general election it’s necessary to make sure they beat out the INO’s.

        2. avatar Napresto says:

          We do both: off years and primaries (and local and everything else). What evidence makes you think that conservatives in deep blue states are somehow more apathetic than those in deep red? If anything, we are far more motivated because we know we can’t afford to be complacent.

        3. avatar Geoff "Kill a Commie for Mommy" PR says:

          “To add to that, I would say it’s also critical to vote in the primaries.”


          You are aware the primaries ARE the off-years Johnathan was talking about?

        4. avatar EWTHeckman says:

          You are aware the primaries ARE the off-years Johnathan was talking about?

          Perhaps you should read what he wrote again:

          Vote in the off years, not just the high profile presidential years, and take back your states.

          The primaries are votes that occur several months prior to the general elections where each party’s candidates are chosen for those general elections. Primaries are not “off year elections.” Most people don’t bother with them. When we wind up with sh***y choices in the general elections, it’s because people who should be paying attention ignored the primary elections.

        5. avatar painlessbob (freestater, but for how long?) says:

          Couldn’t agree more…and it’s not just voting: Look at membership in the NRA, SAF, and state gun-rights organizations. Only a small fraction of us POTG join. Brave men and women have died for our liberty but we give up because we think the Democrats outnumber us. We’re pathetic.

          Imagine the NRA with 50 million members or the SAF with 10 million; that would still be a minority of gun owners.

      2. avatar matt(tx) says:

        There is no way to vote ourselves out of this

    4. avatar Warlocc says:

      As if votes matter in states controlled by Democrats

  8. avatar Vicrattlehead says:

    Mag cap limits should be struck down, if for no other reason than because they’re a useless law that does exactly ZERO to protect ‘public safety’. Even if a spree killer were going to follow a cap limit (why would they?), the tiniest bit of practice swapping mags and their reload times won’t be long enough for a potential victim to react and take even one step towards running away, not that a scenario like that is even remotely common in the first place.

  9. avatar LKB says:

    Minor nit: It’s the United States Court of Appeals for the Third *Circuit*, not “Third District”

    Could this case be headed to the Supreme Court? Probably not, as it’s an appeal from the denial of an injunction, and so procedurally it’s not on the merits and thus is an even toughter lift on a cert petition.

    Given that the Third Circuit is about to have a majority of GOP-appointed judges (, I suspect that there will be a petition for rehearing en banc. (As you may recall, this was the procedural process whereby a favorable Peruta panel opinion was overruled by the full Ninth Circuit. Might work the other way here.)

    My guess is that the Supreme Court will grant cert on a 2A case this term (my money’s on the New York Rifle & Pistol Assoc. case), and the decision in that case will set forth the standard for adjudicating 2A challenges (probably “strict scrutiny”). If they do so, then this and lots of other pending cases would likely then have to be reconsidered / reheard and decided based on the new standard articulated by the Supreme Court.

    1. Correction made. Thanks.

      1. avatar GS650G says:

        Luckily Dan has an Edit button that works

        1. avatar Geoff "Kill a Commie for Mommy" PR says:

          “Luckily Dan has an Edit button that works”

          Dan, are the TTAG ‘code monkeys’ aware the edit button is gone, and how much we REALLY want it back?

    2. avatar WARFAB says:

      This resident of New Yorkistan has his fingers crossed.

      1. avatar GS650G says:

        Place the pictures of Mario Cuomo and Andrew Cuomo in a prominent place in your house and thank the dear leaders for your food each day.

        You have my sympathy. I’ve family in upstate NY I’m trying to convince to leave but they aren’t ready yet.

        1. avatar Geoff "Kill a Commie for Mommy" PR says:

          ” I’ve family in upstate NY I’m trying to convince to leave but they aren’t ready yet.”

          If SCOTUS takes that NY case this year, they may not have to leave…

    3. avatar frank speak says:

      would appear only the courts can save us….

  10. avatar MyName says:

    In my opinion, magazine limits ought to be done away with not just because they are unconstitutional, but because they are stupid. You can’t have more that 10 rounds of 9mm cause thats too dangerous but you can carry around a shotgun with 5 rounds of 00 buckshot because thats harmless, right? What about that 4 or 5 round mag in that 300 WinMag rifle, sure am glad there aren’t many 11 round bolt action rifles – oh the horror. Doesn’t the standard mag on a Barrett M82 hold 10 rounds. 10 rounds of .50 BMG, thumbs up, 15 rounds of .22 LR, must be banned.

    1. avatar Michael in AK says:

      stop making sense….you will cause demoncrats to have strokes with such logical thinking!!!

      1. avatar Vicrattlehead says:

        If it were only so easy to get rid of them…

    2. avatar TheUnspoken says:

      Too bad for those disposable victims of rounds 1-10, no one cares much if you die, we just need a time out after 10 before continuing the shooting, you know, for good sportsmanship and all, just like those hunting 5 round limits for deer.

      Kinda sounds like a mash up of “the Most Dangerous Game” and of those Purge movies (or Brian Regan’s free kill). Urban Hunters are allowed to kill, but only with 10 rounds at a time, and only using a wood stocked rifle. The “arenas” are gun free, so the hunted will try to run or hide or use booby traps or improvised weapons to escape. Mass shooting as population control.

      Similarly, gun or ammo purchase limits are dumb, say only 1 gun and 50 rounds a month (into their 10 round mags): if the arbitrary restriction prevents extra killing, then you tacitly approve of and allow whatever killing can be accomplished below the limit as acceptable loss.

  11. avatar Sian says:

    “Of course, New Jersey’s law carves out a special exemption for active and retired law enforcement officers”

    I would love to see a challenge to these carveouts on 14th amendment grounds.

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      And they stop short of granting military an exemption because we all know they can’t be trusted like Jersey police and special friends of politicians.

      Disgusting people.

  12. avatar EWTHeckman says:

    “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…

    Parkland shooting. That worked out soooo well for the victims, didn’t it?

    </dripping sarc>

    1. avatar MyName says:

      This has always been one of the dumbest takes on mag cap limits. A bunch of politicians, many of who have probably never fired a gun, let alone been on the receiving end of gunfire, postulating that amid the terror, confusion and adrenaline infused panic of an active shooting, people are going to have the calm presence of mind to assess when that 3 second pause in gunfire signals that the shooter’s gun is momentarily unloaded and then they will seize upon that moment to take decisive action. Yup, completely plausible.

  13. avatar JR says:

    Yes and such laws mean that all criminals will automatically comply with these types of laws right?

    1. avatar MyName says:

      Well, of course. Once something is written on paper it automatically becomes and inescapable reality, dontchaknow.

      1. avatar MyName says:

        Argh, return the edit button please. *an* inescapable reality

        1. avatar bob says:

          I know right!

          I don’t get paid to sit here and write, so I do it quickly and sometimes I fudge up, I need that edit capability.

    2. avatar frank speak says:

      laws like this aren’t meant to target criminals…but rather to make you one….

  14. avatar L says:

    Is that guy wearing a turban? Is that really the state’s AG??

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      It sointanly is.

  15. avatar Mark N. says:

    “After all, one shot was good enough for the founders, it should be good enough for regular citizens who are not intent on breaking the law!” Long bow, anyone?

    1. avatar MyName says:

      If they succeed in limiting us to muskets we are going to have to debate powder horn capacity next. Nobody needs to carry more than 1000 grains of FFg.

      1. avatar Michael in AK says:

        I want my lettres de marque! and cannons!!!!!

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          I found out that black powder cannons are actually legal in California. I guess they never saw a need to regulate them. The only thing you need a license for is for the large quantity of powder you need to have to fire one of them, and, I assume, regulations on storage. Black powder is an explosive, after all.

        2. avatar Geoff "House fires SUCK" PR says:

          “Black powder is an explosive, after all.”

          You shoot BP as I recall, Mark.

          I’ve had a nasty house fire. PLEASE consider storing your powder as low as possible in your home…

  16. avatar bob says:

    verb: infringe; 3rd person present: infringes; past tense: infringed; past participle: infringed; gerund or present participle: infringing

    actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.).
    “making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright”
    synonyms: contravene, violate, transgress, break, breach; More
    disobey, defy, flout, fly in the face of;
    disregard, ignore, neglect;
    go beyond, overstep, exceed;
    “the statute infringed constitutionally guaranteed rights”
    antonyms: obey, comply with
    act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
    “his legal rights were being infringed”

    Pretty sure to limit ammunition is covered under the definition of infringement.

    “in the interest of public safety” Is one of the biggest lies people in power tell people they want to rule over in order for them to obey.
    “But its for your own good”

    Wake up Jersey, it isn’t just guns they do this with, think about all your traffic laws, trespassing, communication, etc…

  17. avatar Icabod says:

    The 10 round magazine limit was a political compromise made at the time of the assault weapons ban.
    There was no research that supported a 10 round limit. It was a number picked out of the air.
    Today I still cannot find any research that’s been done on 20 round magazines. All that appears is discussion of the laws and a few anecdotes about shooters.

    1. avatar Scoutino says:

      Gun grabber’s really think like that.
      – Come on, 20 people shot in mass murder is too much. Now 10, that’s a body count we can live with. What you say? It takes just couple of seconds to reload? See, that’s why we need tougher “gunsense measures” like in California where you need to take your rifle apart first to reload!

  18. avatar Hannibal says:

    “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…”

    Except the magazine law has nothing to do with training or experience. The law doesn’t exist so that someone can only accidentally fire 10 rounds in a glorious negligent discharge.So what does it matter if someone has training?

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      For some reason, judges believe that police officers judiciously use their ammunition, not simply doing mag dumps. How little they know!

      1. avatar Hannibal says:

        Even if police are trained like commandos, it has nothing to do with the law or the logic used to find in favor of the restrictions. The law is billed as making it harder for mass-shooters and making it easier to overpower them or escape. The relative training and experience of a police officer has nothing to do with it. Unless they’re suggesting that a well-trained officer who decides to shoot up a school will be so good at it that it makes no difference if he has 10 or 15 rounds with with to shoot?

        Of course the other argument to be made is that the background investigations conducted for police employment might weed out such people, but that’s not the argument they’re using here.

  19. avatar CHS says:

    Can the court please tell me, exactly, how many would be an unconstitutional burden?

    Would an 8rd limit be ok? How about a 5rd limit? What about 1rd?

    And why is 10 ok? What’s special about 10? Why not 11 or 9? 10 is just as arbitrary a number as 11 or 9. It just happens to be a nice round even number.

    These are the questions I wish the courts would ask when they just decide that some random number is ok but another one isn’t when it comes to CONSTITUTIONAL INFRINGEMENTS.

  20. avatar craig says:

    “The record demonstrates that when there are pauses in shooting to reload or for other reasons, opportunities arise for victims to flee.

    Or for criminals to kill you faster while you are reloading!!!

  21. avatar GS650G says:

    The next stop a 4 round limit rendering all handguns illegal.
    And that’s if the smartgun rule doesn’t kick in first.

    1. avatar MyName says:

      We can all just super glue a couple of snap caps into our revolvers and carry on. Or, I’ll just start carrying my 30-06 around – it has a 4 round mag.

      1. avatar GS650G says:

        My Stoeger 3000 is a 4 rounder. No worries about stopping power there.

        1. avatar MyName says:

          Isn’t that semi-auto? You are a danger to society, you should be in jail.

      2. avatar Geoff "Mess with the bull, get the horns" PR says:

        “We can all just super glue a couple of snap caps into our revolvers and carry on”

        You will be required to *weld* the extra cylinder chambers shut…

  22. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    ““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.”

    They’re OK with a law limiting mag sizes. Because the reload pause gives the people under fire time to do something. Violent attackers, under fire from people defending themselves get a pause, to close the gap, or flee.

    For unlawful folk, assulting people using guns, that pause … wait a minute. They’re already scofflaws. Maybe not so likely to follow another law about mag limits.

    I’m sure the 5-foot nothing mother will feel her sacrifice noble, when the rounds allowed her don’t drop her abusive ex; and he kills her in the reload pause. (The ex who blew through that protective order: paper, too makes a poor barrier.)

  23. avatar ollie says:

    The two or three seconds it takes to change a magazine is not enough time to escape from a trained shooter. There used to be a video of a sheriff firing 30 pistol rounds out of two pistols, one with 10 round mags and one with 15 round mags. There was no real time difference between the two guns in several trials and in one case, the 10 rounder was faster. A well trained shooter trumps magazine capacity.

    1. avatar EWTHeckman says:

      If I remember that video correctly, the Sheriff recruited an untrained shooter to run the test. That’s what made the video so effective.

      1. avatar EWTHeckman says:

        Here’s the video:

        1. avatar Hannibal says:

          That guy’s doing tactical reloads and firing in such a way that I would not call him inexperienced.

        2. avatar EWTHeckman says:

          The inexperienced shooter is Christy. He’s using the comparison between Jim (the experienced one) and Christy to show that magazine limits are meaningless when it comes to the excuses used by the Left.

        3. avatar Ransom says:

          Hannibal didn’t watch the whole video and commented as if he had.

        4. avatar Hannibal says:

          Only a couple of minutes to waste at a time. I’m eating more fiber.

        5. avatar EWTHeckman says:

          Keep your friends close, your enemies closer, and the bathroom closest of all! 😁

    2. avatar binder says:

      Well trained trumps lots of things. That is the whole point of the well regulated militia part of the Sencond Amendment. But everyone here puts their head in the sand when it comes to that part. Need your open carry and bumpstocks first.

      1. avatar Shallnot BeInfringed says:

        How much did Soros pay you to post that comment? You sound just like one of them.

        More proof (as if we needed it) that you truly do not understand even the most basic concept of the Second Amendment. Hint: it ain’t about training…

    3. avatar MyName says:

      Hell, they’re just making up that justification anyway.

      For the reload pause to be of any use to a victim they would have to: A) Know how many rounds the assailant’s magazine holds, B) Know whether or not it is fully loaded at the outset, C) Know whether or not the assailant has more than one weapon, D) Keep accurate count of rounds fired (otherwise the gunman could just be pausing to pick his nose), and E) While being fired upon think clearly enough to formulate a plan to use the couple of seconds of empty firearm to take action to either escape, seek cover or disarm the shooter.

      Yeah, that’s gonna happen.

  24. avatar Bierce Ambrose says:

    They way they keep “deciding” that you getting killed doesn’t matter in the balance with, well, with anything else…

    I can’t decide whethe they just don’t care of you die, or positively want you dea. How about both.

  25. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

    We can file this ruling under the heading “Oooohhhh…… close!” or “Missed it by *that* much!”

    You see, the vote was 2-1 against the 2A because of Obama-appointed Judge Patty Shwartz, who wrote the opinion. Does anyone here know whom Judge Shwartz replaced when appointed in 2011? Anyone? Buehler?

    She replaced a mainstream, center-right judge appointed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals by Clinton, but originally appointed to the federal District of NJ court by Reagan, and who now has assumed “senior status” (Sort of a part time, semi-retired, judge position). No guesses?

    That prior judge was none other than…..Maryanne Trump Barry, aka, President Trump’s older sister. The family resemblance in the hair is uncanny. Had she still been on the court, this decision could likely have gone the other way and made major headlines.

  26. avatar CZJay says:

    Politicians buy off cops by giving them benefits for following orders for many years. One of those rewards is being able to have a CCW after retirement regardless that non government workers can’t get one.

  27. avatar arc says:

    The NJ court ruled, so let the NJ court enforce. I predict 99% of people simply not giving a fuck what three wig heads have to say.

  28. avatar Draven says:

    Of course they did. If they didn’t, then New Jersey’s entire AWB , and any other state or federal AWB, is unconstitutional. Can’t jhave that happening, can we? gotta keep the proles in line.

  29. avatar emfourty gasmask says:

    I think going for an en banc hearing would be the next step, since the 3rd is majority conservative at this point.

  30. avatar burley says:

    limit=infringement. Infringement=unconstitutionality. Unconstitutional laws=tyranny.
    Tyranny=why the 2nd Amendment was written in the first place.

  31. avatar Helms Deep says:

    A.T.F. is just making crap up now. ( the ‘ color of law ‘ is whatever we say it is. )

  32. avatar james says:

    62 pages is just NUTS. I guess they did not watch the Sheriff and his video about magazine capacity and reloading times.

    1. avatar Binder says:

      Here is Tim sand bagging it. (and he is now monitized too)


  33. avatar Kman says:

    Jersey is much safer now that thugs, murderers and school shooters are limited to ten round magazines.


    1. avatar Ransom says:

      @Kman: You’re an idiot. Thugs ,murderers and school shooters don’t care about magazine size restrictions! I can’t believe you don’t know that!

      1. avatar Kman says:

        I can’t believe you are completely devoid of any sense of sarcasm whatsoever.

        I overestimated.

        1. avatar Ransom says:

          Kman: Wow! As with most commenting here We are sympatico. View my comment with that in mind.

      2. avatar Hannibal says:


  34. avatar Adam says:

    Another loss for people of the gun. 2019 is shaping up to be a very bad year for us by the looks of it.

    Hopefully Trump can keep packing judges into the courts for the next two years. Honestly, if that is all the senate does for the next 2 years I would have zero complaints.

  35. avatar Alan says:

    An old but all to true idea is as follows. People will get pretty much the kind of government they did not vote against.

  36. avatar Ransom says:

    I’m so happy to have moved out of the U.S.S.N.J.. While revisiting the sad state of my birth I stopped to buy a box of shells and was asked for some kind of super special firearms purchasing license! I used to buy half a hundred 9mm’s for $7 at sports authority with just a driver’s license to prove I was 21. Now at 50 I need code red level 1 Alpha clearance to make holes in paper.

  37. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    “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.”

    Only if you are the chief justice of the Supreme Court,the new swing vote on the court.
    Wasn’t Roberts a Bush jr. appointment,oh yeah all the Bushes are about Freedom and Liberty

  38. avatar sound awake says:

    one difference between liberals and conservatives:

    liberals foolishly think that the law is there to keep bad people from doing horrible things

    conservatives correctly understand that the law is in fact there as a mechanism to remove bad people from civil society when they eventually do something horrible

    all that to say this:

    going forward no self respecting school or mall or movie theater shooter in new jersey is going to stock up on 10 round magazines with the mindset that hes now going to have to reload more often

    *since hes already breaking a million laws by shooting up a bunch of people in a school or mall or movie theater anyway he doesnt care about a silly and stupid high capacity magazine ban*

    and meanwhile the rest of us LAW ABIDING CITIZENS get our natural right to self defense impeded

    if i want a 15 or 18 or 20 or more round magazine to protect myself from the monsters that this world is currently mass producing largely as a result of liberals and their social engineering principles that should be my prerogative


    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      Someone might stick with a 10 round mag because it’s harder to get others or might happen to have a 10rnd mag and just go crazy, who knows. But it won’t matter. They managed to find maybe one or two anecdotes of people trying to jump a shooter while he was reloading. They ignored the many, many more times that no such thing happened.

      “But it might save one life!” So might letting the citizens of NJ that are being shot at carry a gun and shoot back. It has a much greater probability of doing something.

    2. avatar Ransom says:

      Mass shooters may WANT magazines over 10 rounds but if they’re illegal they won’t be able to procure them. Look at how well that works with heroin and Crystal meth.

      1. avatar frank speak says:

        mags are incredibly easy to make on a 3D printer…

        1. avatar Binder says:

          The trick is reliable magazines.

      2. avatar EWTHeckman says:

        At first glance, my initial reaction was, “What is wrong with you? That’s stupid!” But then I kept reading. That is some beautiful sarcasm.

        Weapons and other contraband restrictions in prison are also work perfectly, too. </sarc>

        It’s sad that the first half of your comment is an accurate representation of their actual “thought” process.

  39. avatar Kyle says:

    funny, i wonder how that 3-judge panel would rule were a state to say banning the use of Spanish were not an infringement of the first amendment?

    …oh, never mind, i think i already know.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      “Press one for English”…….

  40. avatar Butch says:

    Da, Comrade, such is life in the People’s Republic of New Jersey. Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m running late for my Goose-stepping lessons.

  41. avatar paul sniffen says:

    lets get this right, 2 judges in PA rule that NJ residents can carry only 10 rounds in a mag, while PA residents can carry 20 or 30 rounds, also the judges can carry 20 or 30 rounds…

    ….the fact is in NJ we cannot carry zero rounds, carry an empty gun, you are a felon, 10,20,30 rounds is a moot point…..

    the 60 page ruling was written by 8th graders, reference to Gabby Gifford and Mother Earth or Mother Jones……three 10 rounders are the same as one 30 rounder, 2nd grade math…..better yet , 2 guns with 10 rounds each…..

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email