Federal Court Upholds N.J. Mag Ban, Reminds Gun Owners Importance of Federal Judges

Opinion

9mm Hollow Point Ammunition Handgun Magazine
9mm Hollow Point Ammunition Handgun Magazine

Fairfax, VA – -(Ammoland.com)- Just in case gun owners needed another reason to back Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court or to get energized ahead of the 2018 midterm elections, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey gave us one. On September 28, District Judge Peter G. Sheridan denied a motion for a preliminary injunction that would have enjoined enforcement of New Jersey’s 10-round magazine capacity limit.

Back on June 13, New Jersey’s anti-gun Governor Phil Murphy signed A2761 into law. The legislation altered the state definition of “large capacity ammunition magazine”from magazines that can accept more than 15 rounds down to those that can accept more than 10. Owners of the newly prohibited magazines are required to forfeit possession of their property within 180 days, or to permanently modify their magazines to accept no more than 10 rounds.

Democrat Gun Banner Phil Murphy
New Jersey’s anti-gun Governor Phil Murphy

Shortly after A2761 was signed, NRA-ILA announced that it was joining with the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs to challenge the new law. At the time, NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox noted, “Magazine bans do not deter criminals or improve public safety. Instead, they irrationally burden the rights of law-abiding gun owners.”This is in line with a Department of Justice-funded study of the 1994 federal semiautomatic ban, which also restricted magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds. The study noted that “[s]hould it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.”

In his decision, Sheridan conceded that magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds are in “common use”and thus entitled to Second Amendment protection. However, Sheridan then proceeded, as other courts have done, to apply an infinitely malleable interest-balancing test standard to determine whether New Jersey’s infringement on the Second Amendment right is permissible.

In this vein, Sheridan concluded that the Garden State’s magazine ban should be subject to intermediate scrutiny, meaning that the policy must further an important government interest by a method substantially related to the interest. The court, acting as policy analyst, rejected testimony refuting the efficacy of magazine bans and adopted the state’s purported concerns over the criminal use of these items.

The Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs has made clear that they intend to appeal the decision.

Ironically, Sheridan may have done some of a future Supreme Court’s analysis on magazine bans for them. In his decision, the judge stated, “[m]uch of the legal history and tradition of [large capacity magazine] restrictions in the United States is relatively recent and evolving.”In his District of Columbia v. Heller opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia did not set forth an interest-balancing test for Second Amendment cases. Instead, Scalia noted that only some “longstanding”firearms restrictions were acceptable.

As a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Judge Kavanaugh faithfully interpreted the Hellerdecision in his dissent in Heller v. District of Columbia, or Heller II. Judge Kavanaugh explained that a court must “assess gun bans and regulations based on text, history, and tradition, not by a balancing test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny.”Sheridan’s own writing appears to acknowledge magazine bans are of relatively recent vintage, undercutting their legitimacy under the proper Heller standard.

The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey’s decision to uphold the state’s new magazine ban underscores the important role the federal judiciary plays in protecting Americans’constitutional rights. Moreover, this stark example of the need for principled jurists on the federal bench comes at a time when Americans can make a direct impact on the courts’future. Gun rights supporters eager for a federal judiciary that respects their rights must make their support for Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination known to their Senators and vote on November 6 to ensure that President Donald Trump has a Senate that will confirm all of his pro-Second Amendment judicial nominees.


National Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action (NRA-ILA)

About:
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org

  • 18
    Leave a Reply

    Please Login to comment
    13 Comment threads
    5 Thread replies
    0 Followers
     
    Most reacted comment
    Hottest comment thread
    13 Comment authors
    Lord-Pi-314Wild BillRobert Hartwigjoefoamwilly d Recent comment authors
      Subscribe  
    Notify of
    Robert Hartwig
    Guest
    Robert Hartwig

    I would feel a lot easier if I knew the Senate race would return a Republican majority say 30 DemocRATS to 70 Republicans. Then when OLD Ruthie kicks the bucket or retires (soon I hope) we will have a rock hard lock on the Supreme Court. Then we can get the verdict on the Second Amendment we know is right.

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @RH, we would all feel better if we knew that to be the future. Let’s make it the future. And while you, the voting eligible members of your family, and anyone else that you can bring along, are there … vote for a right thinking, not corrupted yet House of Representatives candidate, too!

    Lord-Pi-314
    Guest
    Lord-Pi-314

    Tyrannical Traitors have, and will, ignore the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They have, and will, act as if the Supremacy Clause is no more than a smudge mark on Bush’s “Goddam Piece of Paper”. Their names will go down in infamy. Each and every one of them should have to pee in a cup just before they do any voting on issues.

    willy d
    Guest
    willy d

    D T the only way that I would like to have searching for magazines is the Demo-Rat governor and he would have to be serving the warrant, that might serve two question, one does he have the Balls and will he make it to the next house to serve the next warrant?????????

    willy d
    Guest
    willy d

    Since the Demo-Rats are in control in N.J., The Demo-Rats are all but in charge in Pa> also, It’s a disease that is spreading fast!!!!!

    David Telliho
    Guest
    David Telliho

    Even a mouse will fight the cat, tho death is imminent. I no longer care what gun laws are passed. Ted Kennedy`s car killed more people than any gun I may or may not own. A police state is the next step. And only half a baby step, at that.. Then what? Do we humbly stand in lines to turn in our guns, magazines,ammo,reloading equip,and register our hunting knives, and the arrows for our bows? Arrows are in Ill. , knives are,in Russia. Gentlemen, it`s our own fault. We`ve no one else to blame. Will Jersey gun owners turn in… Read more »

    Colonialgirl
    Guest
    Colonialgirl

    Since WHEN does “Government interest” over rule , over power, and replace ANY of the First Ten amendments and specifically the Second Amendment?

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @Cg, I believe that the erosion of the concept of individual Civil Rights began with Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. The founders believed that a Civil Right was a shield that one could stand behind and not be touched. Holmes and other elitists on the S. Ct. could not stand the thought of ordinary peoples’ behavior not being controlled by the federal and state governments. So those S.CT. elitists introduced the notion that the peoples’ individual Constitutional Civil Rights had to be “balanced” against the needs of the state. Thus reducing our Rights to mere privileges.

    Lord-Pi-314
    Guest
    Lord-Pi-314

    Before Oliver began his career, I wonder how many people actually did yell “fire” in a crowded theatre ? If anyone knows, what were some of the specific instances of people hiding behind their rights that Oliver objected to. Or perhaps his thinking was just plain boloxed up from the pain of his several Civil War injuries, and whatever substances he partook in to alleviate himself from his discomfort. Now that you brought up this figure, I am wondering what part he may have played in the rumored “Second Constitution” that came into play with the Act of 1871. Those… Read more »

    William Ginn
    Guest
    William Ginn

    We in ny already have the safe act and are limited to only 10 rounds and GOVERNOR CUOMO WANTS TO EXPAND THE SAFE ACT

    Toly
    Guest
    Toly

    This further supports my claim that Supreme Court should have a number of Red Robe Justices rather than be composed of all Black robes [ lawyers].

    Ken
    Guest
    Ken

    I’m sorry but “longstanding” firearms restrictions are definitely NOT acceptable. The NFA, GCA, Hughes Amendment and every other restriction whether it be from imported items or domestic is utterly unacceptable.

    Tionico
    Guest
    Tionico

    Not only are New Jersey insane for thinking a ten round mag cap will “reduce crime” they’re also crazy in banning standard defensive hollow point ammo. I see fifteen felony charges laying on that table shown in the image heading the article. And out of state innocents HAVE been charged with those felonies. I wonder if that judge has reviewed records of “mass shootings” that include information on the round capacity of the magazines used in those attacks…. quite a number of them I’ve read about used the standard ten round mags, and still managed to kill and injure quite… Read more »

    joefoam
    Guest
    joefoam

    I’m sure they’ll sleep comfortably in bed knowing that the crime rate will be drastically reduced by enacting these bills. NOT!

    willy d
    Guest
    willy d

    Another Lib with too much power which probably has an armed bodyguard for protection!!!!! Also does this ban apply to Local and State Police????????????

    joefoam
    Guest
    joefoam

    As noted in the article, it is imperative we rid the courts of these activist judges and replace them with constitutionalists.

    Laddyboy
    Guest
    Laddyboy

    YEP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Parnell
    Guest
    Parnell

    Here we go with the “evolving” nonsense again. Another example of Ex Post Facto law which the Supremes declared unconstitutional in the 1860’s in Ex Parte McCardle. I wonder why this case went to a “Senior” judge who basically had stepped down from the active banc.