SCOTUS considering Bianchi v Frosh/Duncan v Bonta the turning point for AW/magazine ban?

[General Geoff]

We will grant plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment regarding Section 6106’s vehicle provision and Section 6107.

This is huge for anyone who for whatever reason can't get a LTCF here in PA. At least now they can carry openly both on foot and in a vehicle legally now.

The decision also leads to a potential slide away from lifetime firearm prohibitions for convicted felons, especially for those convicted of nonviolent crimes.

 

[LiveLife]

Update to Cheeseman v Platkin (NJ AW ban) and consolidated ANJRPC v Platkin / Ellman v Platkin (NJ AW/Magazine ban) - https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-...-down-part-of-new-jerseys-assault-weapons-ban

FPC Statement on Cheeseman decision striking down part of New Jersey's "Assault Weapon" ban:

United States District Judge Peter G. Sheridan issued a decision declaring part of New Jersey’s ban on so-called ‘assault weapons’ unconstitutional in Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC)’s Second Amendment lawsuit Cheeseman v. Platkin. In his opinion, Judge Sheridan held that the “AR-15 Provision of [New Jersey’s] Assault Firearms Law is unconstitutional under Bruen and Heller as to the Colt AR-15 for use of self-defense within the home.” The opinion can be found at firearmspolicy.org/cheeseman.​

​

“Bans on so-called ‘assault weapons’ are immoral and unconstitutional. FPC will continue to fight forward until all of these bans are eliminated throughout the United States,” said FPC President Brandon Combs.​

​

FPC has filed a notice of appeal to the Third Circuit to address legal deficiencies in the Court’s opinion and seek the full relief requested from the district court. New Jersey is expected to file its own appeal.​

​

The Cheeseman lawsuit is one of dozens of FPC cases challenging unconstitutional laws and part of its high-impact strategic litigation program to eliminate disarmament regimes and restore the natural right to keep and bear arms throughout the United States.​

​

From the ruling - https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fi...2367715/2024.07.30_080_OPINION.pdf?1722367715

... In 1791, about twelve years after the end of the American Revolutionary War, the Bill of Rights was adopted as part of the Constitution of the United States to protect and guarantee the freedom of citizens. One of those rights is the right to "keep and bear Arms.'' The Second Amendment provides:​

​

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. (Page 18)​

​

11. A semi-automatic weapon ... differs from a fully automatic firearm, like a machine gun, because a fully automatic firearm - when the trigger is depressed - will fire a continuous, rapid series of shots until the trigger is released or the amnmunition supply is exhausted. To shoot a semi-automatic weapon like the AR-15, one must depress the trigger each time that one wishes to shoot. Rounds are inserted into the AR-15 through a detachable magazine. (Page 24)​

​

D. Supreme Court Jurisprudence - Within the past several years, the Second Amendment and corresponding analysis undertaken by the courts has been in flux. The Court summarizes the decisions that have shaped today's standard below.​

​

a. District of Columbia v. Heller​

b. McDonald v. City of Chicago​

c. New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen​

​

... the Court set forth a new standard for applying the Second Amendment. It is as follows:​

​

When the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual's conduct falls outside the Second Amendment's "unqualified command."​

​

d. United States v. Rahimi​

​

... the Court reiterated the appropriate analysis as laid out in Bruen. The Court also noted that its precedents "were not meant to suggest a law trapped in amber. As we explained in Heller, for example, the reach of the Second Amendment is not limited only to those arms that were in existence at the founding." (Page 39)​

​

On June 30, 2022, the Supreme Court granted the writ of certiorari for the plaintiffs in ANJRPC III. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment in ANJRPC Ill and remanded the case back to the Third Circuit "for further consideration in light of [Bruen]. The Third Circuit, in turn, remanded to the case back to me "for [a] decision in the first instance under the standard announced in Bruen (Page 42)​

​

Before the Court today are two separate issues: whether the AR-15 Provision within the Assault Firearms Law is unconstitutional and whether the LCM Amendment is unconstitutional. The Court first lays out the Bruen standard before addressing each constitutional challenge below.​

​

A. Bruen Standard​

​

As previously mentioned, the Supreme Court in Bruen repudiated a means end test, and it provided the lower courts with a new standard ... The Third Circuit explained the first step of Bruen as where the ''court determines whether 'the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct.' ... That 'textual analysis' focuse on the 'normal and ordinary' meaning of the Second Amendment's language .... If the text applies to the conduct at issue, 'the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct."'​

There are several limitations to this right, however. These are that the arm must be in ''common use'' and it must not be "dangerous and unusual." Heller. (Page 43)​

​

Assuming an arm falls within the plain text of the Second Amendment, the Court proceeds to the second step of the analysis. Here, "a court determines whether the regulation in question 'is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.' ... If it is, the presumption made at the first step of Bruen is overcome, and the regulation in question can stand."​

​

The Third Circuit explained that in this second step, "the government bears the burden of identifying a 'founding-era' historical analogue to the modern firearm regulation." The Third Circuit further explained that in this analysis we "are to look to the founding because' [c]onstitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them."'​

​

With respect to relevant precedent, the Third Circuit explained that "[t]he question is 'whether historical precedent from before, during, and even after the founding evinces a comparable tradition of regulation[,]"' and that courts should "discount '[h]istorical evidence that long predates' 1791 and 'guard against giving post enactment history more weight than it can rightly bear."' Id. This analysis requires a court to consider the"'how and why the regulations [being compared] burden a law-abiding citizen's right to armed self-defense."' (Page 44)​

​

B. AR-15 Provision of the Assault Firearms Law​

​

Under Heller, while the Supreme Court stated that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited, the Supreme Court forbade a complete prohibition on a class of gun ownership. (holding the absolute prohibition of an "entire class of 'arms "' that is widely utilized for the lawful purpose of self-defense is impermissible). Guided by this decision, and for the reasons below, the AR-15 Provision of the Assault Firearms Law which prohibits the use of the Colt AR-15 for the use of self-defense within the home does not pass constitutional muster when applying the Bruen standard.​

​

To the first step of the Bruen analysis, whether the Second Amendment' s plain text covers Plaintiffs' proposed course of conduct - the possession and use of AR15s within the home for self-defense - the answer is yes. (Page 45)​

​

As the Supreme Court discussed in Bruen, the Second Amendment confers the right to an individual to bear arms "'upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.'" Bruen​

​

Although Heller and Bruen treated handguns and not semi-automatic weapons, the applicability of the Second Amendment's text to the question before the Court appears to already have been answered by those same decisions. (Page 46)​

​

What the Supreme Court meant by "common use" is not exactly clear ... Thus, when undertaking this common use for lawful purposes inquiry, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have satisfied their burden with respect to the AR-15. Plaintiffs have shown that the weapon is "overwhelmingly chosen by American society for [a] lawful purpose." ... AR-15 firearms are produced by a multitude of manufacturers and are commonly owned throughout the United States (Page 48)​

​

Where the clear language of Heller states that the Second .Amendment's right to self-defense is "most acute" within the home, the dictates of the Supreme Court on this matter are clear: the banning of this firearm for self-defense within the home where it is a firearm that has been shown to be commonly used for a lawful purpose is unpermitted. (Page 51)​

​

The Court proceeds to the second step in the Bruen analysis, which is"whether the regulation in question 'is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.' ... Like in Heller, the Assault Firearms Law's AR-15 Provision acts effectively as the total prohibition on a commonly used firearm for self-defense - AR-15s - within the home; the text of New Jersey's Assault Firearms Law prohibiting a list of sixty-six weapons, including the Colt AR-15 defined in the AR-15 Provision. The AR-15 Provision is impermissible under the plain text of Heller. (Page 52)​

​

Thus, in this Court's understanding of Supreme Court precedent, a categorical ban on a class of weapons commonly used for self-defense is unlawful ... State Defendants' argument fails because, like in Heller, the Assault Firearms Law categorically bans a type of weapon that is commonly used for self-defense (Page 55)​

​

Based upon the Supreme Court's clear direction on this point, the AR-15 Provision of the Assault Firearms Law is unconstitutional for the Colt AR-15 for use for self-defense in the home.​

​

C. LCM Amendment​

​

Applying the Bruen test, one looks first at whether large capacity ammunition magazines are entitled to Second Amendment protections under the plain text of the Second Amendment. The Court need not look far to answer this question. The Supreme Court has held that "[t]he possession of arms also implie the possession of ammunition," Miller (Page 56)​

This reading has been confirmed by the Third Circuit, which has held that large capacity ammunition magazines are an arm within the meaning of the Second Amendment.​

​

Specifically, the Third Circuit has stated that "since magazines feed ammunition into certain guns, and ammunition is necessary for such a gun to function as intended, magazines are 'arms' within the meaning of the Second Amendment" (Page 57)​

​

As such, these historical analogues provide the basis for the following conclusion: that the State may regulate the permissible capacity of the large capacity magazines. For these reasons, the LCM Amendment is constitutional. (Page 67) ​

 

[armoredman]

Interesting. Small wins lead to bigger wins.

 

[Basura Blanca]

Wow.
Did anyone read the actual decision? Page 62 on.
The reason LCMs can be regulated is because such regulations are historically consistent with those aimed at controlling Bowie knives, therefore similar attempts to subdue modern mass shootings are the same thing. The mental gymnastics to reach that conclusion are astounding.

excerpt:
"Thus, while a few outlier States implemented near-total restrictions on Bowie knives, these restrictions overall fanned the basis for a tradition of prohibiting a subset of arms that could be useful and had become common for self-defense yet nevertheless posed a threat to public safety."

...and that's why we can't have nice stuff.

 

[LiveLife]

Wow ... Did anyone read the actual decision? Page 62 on.

The reason LCMs can be regulated is because such regulations are historically consistent with those aimed at controlling Bowie knives

Wow indeed. I was compelled to read the entire ruling and read past my bedtime for over 3 hours (Past 1 AM) while digesting, bulleting and highlighting key points but couldn't believe the "incorrect" application of Bruen methodology used to support LCM (Large Capacity Magazine) ban provision and decided to go to sleep and approach after breakfast.

This is why the Supreme Court "Originalist" majority want to clarify the proper application of Heller/Caetano/Bruen methodology in correctly identifying historical "analogues" and expanding Second Amendment protection to "modern" types of arms/accessories and I anticipate we will see some movement in their decision to hear and rule on cases to clarify approaching Second Amendment cases next term.

Other courts, mainly judge Benitez in Duncan/Miller cases already "correctly" pointed out proper historical analogue to magazine ban is musket ball/powder storage ban as they are proper analogue to "modern" ammunition storage. And as ruled in Duncan case, knife ban is not analogous and there was no ban on musket ball/powder storage other than limited regulation for fire suppression, not self defense. (And FYI, Colonists in common practice kept enough supplies and musket balls/powder for several hundred rounds with no limitation applied to how much was carried on person)

So proper application of Bruen methodology would have determined there was no historical analogous regulation of limiting ammunition storage and therefore LCM provision is unconstitutional. (I have a feeling higher court will reverse this incorrect ruling )

Key takeaway from the ruling is that this decision continues the reaffirmation of Heller/Caetano/Bruen methodology in expanding Second Amendment protection to "modern" types of arms to now cover magazine fed semi-auto rifles with conclusion that these type of arms CANNOT be banned.


Mark Smith from Four Boxes Diner discuss Cheeseman v Platkin (NJ AW ban) and consolidated ANJRPC v Platkin / Ellman v Platkin (NJ AW/Magazine ban) cases:

Federal judge in New Jersey found that the state's Assault Firearms Law as applied to AR-15s is unconstitutional under the 2nd Amendment. Mark Smith Four Boxes Diner discusses.

• Major breaking news ... the New Jersey "assault weapon" ban that bans AR-15s has been declared unconstitutional under the Second Amendment in a huge decision by judge Peter Sheridan
• Major win, not a perfectly reasoned win and some mistakes made by the federal district court judge but overall great job on finding that AR-15s are clearly protected arms and cannot be banned under the Second Amendment
• Judge Peter Sheridan, federal district court judge in New Jersey declaring AR-15 ban is unconstitutional ... court also found that the magazine limitations on "large capacity magazines" was constitutional that is CLEARLY WRONG but you know one step at a time
• Court did a pretty good job in its reasoning, not a perfect job, the rationale was not as smooth and perfect as it could be and it will be in front of the US Supreme Court but he got to the right outcome, specifically for "in common use" test says the following:

"If an arm is in common used by Americans for lawful purposes, it cannot be banned."

That was what the US Supreme Court set forth in Heller specifically that handguns, even though they're used in the majority of crimes in America in terms of violent crimes, they cannot be banned because they're in common use by Americans for lawful purposes​

• Court of course cites to Heller and says that AR-15s are clearly in common use by Americans. He talks about how there's over over 20 million AR-15s and AR style firearms in America and they're clearly used for lawful purposes and thus they cannot be banned. Very powerful
• He says the AR-15 is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for lawful purposes. He goes on to say that AR-15s are well designed and well adapted for self-defense
• He discusses the mountain of evidence to shows that- the AR15s can be used and are used for self-defense which is pretty common sense because if you walk down Time Square, you see basically police officers carrying AR style Firearms probably m4s
• So obviously if it's good enough for police and federal law enforcement to be able to carry these style of guns for self-defense purposes, then obviously why shouldn't Americans be able to do it since we buy these in overwhelming numbers over 20 million
• Then judge goes on to say that it is not the plaintiff's burden to show that AR-15s are the most popular weapon for defensive gun use that is perfectly fine that handguns may be more popular for self defense than AR-15s
• But nevertheless, the AR-15 is in common use and cannot be banned
• Then he goes on to historical analogue laws dealing with Bowie knives, trap guns, gunpowder laws in the clubs but restrictions on those kinds of guns and weapons were restrictions, they weren't outright bans
• Judge notices this and points out that New Jersey's AR-15 provision constitutes a complete ban on a class of firearms that's commonly owned for self-defense
• In the same way what DC had done with handguns, it was a complete ban on handguns that were used for self-defense in DC and that was unconstitutional; so therefore, The AR-15 provision is impermissible under the plain text of Heller"
• He also goes on to say that any arguments about you need to look at ... unprecedented societal or unprecedented technological change for a whole host of reasons.
• Those arguments were raised before the US Supreme Court in heler in 2008 and were rejected so any arguments about how mass shootings and criminal use of firearm somehow allows you to ban guns in 2024 is utter nonsense given the fact that those exact same arguments were raised by the US Supreme Court in Heller in 2008 and rejected
• So there's no reason to think that mass shootings and crime related arguments are somehow going to win the day today
• Court used the Rahimi case in favor of Second Amendment rights ... "In holding this, the Supreme Court reiterated the appropriate analysis as laid out in Bruen." And he cites to the Rahimi case then this he points out that the Supreme Court in Rahimi also noted that its precedents were not meant to suggest a law trapped in Amber
• Now the anti-gunners think that gives them sort of carte blanche to make up new laws but it's absolutely the opposite.
• Here is an example of what exactly what I'm saying. Judge Sheridan knocking out New Jersey's AR-15 ban says exactly this relying upon Rahimi which again some people say that was very bad for us. I said no no no it's very good for us
• Here is what he writes relying upon Rahimi to knock out New Jersey's AR-15 ban. Judge writes the following quote as we explained in Heller discussing about the Supreme Court for example: "The reach of the Second Amendment is not limited only to those arms that were in existence at the time of the founding"
• Do you see that? They're using Rahimi to protect modern firearms such as AR-15 here in this case out of New Jersey
• Bottom line is the AR-15 ban and AR style firearm ban in New Jersey has been declared unconstitutional
• The magazine capacity restrictions was declared constitutional, that is clearly wrong but nevertheless we'll take a win where we can get them in a place like New Jersey

BREAKING NEWS: FEDERAL JUDGE FINDS NJ AR-15 BAN TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Federal judge in New Jersey found that the state's Assault Firearms Law as applied to AR-15s is unconstitutional under the 2nd Amendment. Mark Smith Four Box...

www.youtube.com

 

[Basura Blanca]

Collectively (THR, gun folks, etc.), the LCM part of the decision was "clearly wrong", but that's because we're all very biased. If it were actually clear, it wouldn't be being litigated though.

The subtext of the 'Bowie knife metric' is more sinister though. It's not just that it's a stretch based on convoluted logic, rather, it's the direct result of the high court watering down the historical analogue portion of Bruen, in Rahimi. It's more evident when you look at what the other side is doing. For instance, this link is to Everytown's amended brief in Miller v Bonta. Point two in the brief (page 11 +), gets to the heart of the matter. Their approach to Bruen is fix the point in history to at least post-reconstruction, and they make a cogent argument why (tl;dr the 14th amendment). But they don't stop there.

"But if the Court finds it necessary to decide the question, it should conclude that the most relevant time period for that inquiry centers around 1868. And it should further conclude that the historical inquiry extends thereafter—including into the 20th century—to encompass consistent later restrictions, given the “dramatic technological changes” and “unprecedented societal concerns” present in this case"

This is the tack of the anti-rights community in the post Bruen world, and unfortunately, Rahimi disastrously gave them a lot of fuel to proceed along those lines. Think: "not trapped in amber" here. This is what they're taking from Robert's words.

 

[LiveLife]

Adding to post #502 regarding Cheeseman v Platkin (NJ AW ban) and consolidated ANJRPC v Platkin / Ellman v Platkin (NJ AW/Magazine ban) cases - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-21#post-12950174

Interesting take by ex FPC attorney Anthony Miranda that the district court judge was really anti-2A but in applying Bruen methodology, HAD TO rule narrowly that specific model of AR-15s, the Colt AR-15 was protected by the Second Amendment and state's ban was unconstitutional but state's regulation of magazine capacity to less than 10 rounds was constitutional. (Of course, incorrectly applied Bruen methodology but significance was this anti-2A district court judge didn't even want to rule to protect Colt AR-15).

• Huge case where Supreme Court's Bruen decision was used to attack a state's ban on rifles and then also magazines
• Decision out of New Jersey is actually multiple lawsuits that were challenging the state's ban on semi-automatic rifles, certain rifles, classifying them as so-called "assault weapons" and ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds
• Cases are ANJRPC v Platkin, Cheeseman v Platkin
• Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Club v Platkin is a case that originally made its way to the Supreme Court on appeal of 3rd Circuit 3 panel judge decision but put on hold and remanded back down to the lower court here after 2022 Bruen decision now
• Interestingly the decision by the District Court here on a motion for summary judgment is granting it partially in favor of some of the plaintiffs [On AW/Colt AR-15] and then also granting a cross motion for summary judgment in favor of the state of New Jersey [On Large Capacity Magazine]
• Narrow decision here because Bruen is such a strict standard the court here that didn't want to really give any wins still had to give a limited win
• And limited decision went as far as one specific classification of AR-15s, the Colt AR-15, so essentially they found that the state's restriction on Colt AR-15s was in fact unconstitutional under this New Jersey law applying Bruen precedent here by the Supreme Court
• But then when it came to magazines, the court deviated from Bruen and found magazine ban in the state was constitutional
• ANJRPC case was in reaction to a June 2018 NJ law that banned the possession of magazines with a capacity to accept or hold more than 10 rounds
• New Jersey law required owners to essentially modify their magazines and permanently reduce the capacity or to destroy them. Another alternative was to turn them over to law enforcement, so very similar to what other states did when they banned magazines
• In August of 2018, District Court who reviewed this case originally denied ANJRPC's motion for a preliminary injunction and they applied what is known as now the eliminated "two-step" approach and 3rd Circuit also ruled the same
• Case ultimately went to the Supreme Court but like a lot of other cases like Duncan case (California magazine ban), put on hold and ultimately they were all sent back down to the lower courts for reconsideration in light of Bruen
• So this is a case that was remanded by the Supreme Court back in 2022. When it went back into the hands of the district court, there were some other cases by organizations like FPC where they were challenging the rifle ban in New Jersey
• What ended up happening is the district court consolidated the cases so now the court here is reviewing not just the magazine ban in the ANJRPC case but also the rifle ban case and finally we have the decision of the district court two years later
• Some of the general takeaways of this decision found the restriction in New Jersey, specifically applied to the Colt AR-15 is in fact unconstitutional in light of Bruen and Heller as Supreme Court precedent
• Looking at some of the historical analogues when looking at the magazine ban, the court found magazine ban in New Jersey is constitutional
• One of those weird decisions where you can really tell that the judge here didn't really want to give any positive wins and the judge here didn't really want to be pro-2A, but Bruen in some ways forced his hand on this issue of Colt AR-15. But in every other aspect, it was limited and anti-Second Amendment decision
• He then goes on to say because of "Stare decisis" principle (Doctrine that courts will adhere to precedent in making their decisions. Stare decisis means "to stand by things decided") and him being bound by what the Supreme Court said
• Also he takes a shot at Congress saying well, Congress also hasn't banned these items ... I am therefore bound to have to say that this provision of the firearms law in New Jersey is unconstitutional as applied to specific AR-15s. So first, the judge says that he is limiting his decision and his ruling only on AR15s because he says that is what was fully briefed in front of him [But the case is really about all magazine fed semi-auto rifles addressed by Heller as stated by justices Alito/Kavanaugh/Kavanaugh ]
• He says that's what most of the evidence and arguments were made about, you know there was a challenge to the semi-automatic restrictions I believe at large but since a lot of the discussion, I guess was about AR15s, he's saying I only have evidence to make a ruling on AR15s or Colt AR15s and so I'm going to limit my decision on those specific rifles
• Now really when you look at his analysis as far as the AR-15s, it's all kind of goes down to Heller "in common use" test and really the discussion by the Supreme Court saying that a state like New Jersey cannot just have a categorical outright ban on a firearm that is clearly "in common use" for lawful purposes
• Also there was a lot of back and forth and discussion in this brief and this decision about you know what is actually "in common use"
• You had one side the pro-2A side that says mere possession in numbers is common use and qualifies for common use and then you have the state of New Jersey that makes the contrary argument that says no, common use is actual use. It is actual numbers and data about self-defense use
• So here the court is actually rejecting that which is good to see they rejected the whole self-defense actual use argument and said that no just common possession is true common use
• The court struck down the state's restriction on the Colt AR-15 but again very limited in scope
• Then the court moved on to do the analysis about magazines and here is really where things go off the rails with this specific case and this decision
• The court here is saying that these items, these magazines are clearly arms so they reject the argument that magazines are just merely accessories and not arms protected by the Second Amendment [Correctly defined following other recent court rulings that magazines are indeed "arms" protected by the Second Amendment ]
• The court here actually says that accordingly under the 3rd Circuit's finding, they agree that magazines and they're kind of bound by the fact that magazines are arms within the meaning of the text of the Second Amendment []
• And then after finding that these are in fact arms, the court also finds that these magazines are in common use []
• The court states that large capacity magazines are commonly owned given that the LCM Amendment permits some level of large capacity magazine ownership in the state of New Jersey and has done so for more than 30 years. So again find that these are in common use that they are owned enough in significant numbers to be in common use []
• But then things drastically shift when they go and look at the restriction of New Jersey and try to justify it with you know historical analysis. The court here is applying something known as the more nuanced approach based on societal concerns in new technology. This is something that was vaguely referenced in Bruen and was also I believe vaguely referenced in Rahimi
• And the lower court here is taking that link language and saying yes, these are arms. Yes they're in common use. But it's a big new societal concern and it's new technology; and therefore, we're going to apply the more nuanced approach. So here is where things really went off the rails.
• They're pretty much doing this public interest backend argument in balancing even though you know tier based scrutiny and public interest and all that was done away with the Bruen. Here they are trying to use that language about the nuanced approach in different types of analogues, historical analogues and public interest to back in on back door in that analysis to uphold these restrictions on magazines [Nice try but NOT going to fly under Bruen test]
• And that's exactly what the court does also in this decision. The court "Sua sponte" which means on their own, decided to stay this decision in its application for 30 days. Now what that means is nothing is really going to change in New Jersey.
• What's going to happen now is of course probably the state of New Jersey is going to appeal probably also the plaintiffs here are going to appeal because they want to get rid of the magazine ban
• This is going to be appealed once again to the 3rd Circuit

Supreme Court Decision & Remand Order Forces An End To "Assault Weapon" Ban! Magazine Ban Upheld!

In this video I break down.a new decision striking down a state rifle ban but upholding a magazine ban using the Supreme Court's recent decisions!🎥 Follow M...

www.youtube.com

 

[LiveLife]

LCM part of the decision was "clearly wrong", but that's because we're all very biased. If it were actually clear, it wouldn't be being litigated though

... subtext of the 'Bowie knife metric'

Yes. Actually, the Supreme Court and lower courts already ruled that "modern" ammunition storage devices like magazines (Tube, fixed, detachable, etc.) are "arms" protected by the Second Amendment and as judge Benitez stated, analogous to musket balls and powder, not knives.

When judge Benitez gave CA attorneys extra time to come up with "best" historical evidence of ammunition capacity ban for Duncan case, they could not (If they could have, believe me, they would have ) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-11#post-12528071

So now that EVERY judge/justice knows that there is no historical evidence of ammunition/capacity ban, anti-2A judges will do a lot of hand waving to justify using some other argument like military use or knife analogy. [But as already stated by judge Benitez, good try but won't pass Bruen test]

And when Duncan argument was made at the 9th Circuit, what was clear from listening to judges is that even the 9th Circuit judges are keenly aware of Bruen mandate of "text, history and tradition" and some were clearly pointing out the Heller/Bruen mandates (Which even the CA attorney correctly agreed with) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-17#post-12860510

At 25:50 minute, CA attorney admits that "We cannot ban all semi-auto [magazine fed mechanism] weapons and Heller makes that clear"​

I think as one judge pointed out and as I posted in post #401, CA has the burden to provide historical tradition evidence analogous to larger than 10 round magazine ban (And there is none as pointed out by judge Benitez ruling) and CA has to clearly explain how and why 11 round magazine is dangerous and unusual when 10 round magazine is not [I loved that part]

"... how does five round difference between 10 round and 15 round magazines make the 15 round magazine 'dangerous'? [and 10 round magazine not dangerous]​

And judge Benitez ruled with following conclusion - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-14#post-12721871

"There is no American history or tradition of regulating firearms based on the number of rounds they can shoot, or of regulating the amount of ammunition that can be kept and carried."​

 

[LiveLife]

Update to Arnold v Brown (Now Kotek) (OR magazine ban/permit to purchase) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-17#post-12877628

NOTE: This is Oregon state case using Oregon constitution

Ex FPC attorney Anthony Miranda discuss state's appeal to the appellate court

• Harney county circuit court judge Raschio issued final ruling and permanent injunction against Measure 114
• Both judge Raschio and appellate court denied state's request for stay
• State has filed brief for appeal to the appellate court and plaintiffs have filed response brief
• Permanent injunction against Measure 114 remains in place during appeal

BREAKING!!! Magazine Ban Permanently Struck Down & Ruled Unconstitutional! Now What?

In this video I break down a major decision and critical review on a states magazine ban and permit process!Kershaw: Use code Armed40 for 40% off MSRP. If a ...

www.youtube.com

You can support Tyler Smith & Associates, PC and its lead case attorney Anthony "Tony" Aiello, Jr. who are representing Mr. Arnold and Mr. Asmussen in Arnold v. Kotek - https://www.givesendgo.com/StateCourt_StopMeasure114

 

[Mk-211]

I wanna say something that's not CoC compliant.

So I'll just say, "buy up now!"

 

[LiveLife]

So I'll just say, "buy up now!"

Already did.

 

[Basura Blanca]

Yes. Actually, the Supreme Court and lower courts already ruled that "modern" ammunition storage devices like magazines (Tube, fixed, detachable, etc.) are "arms" protected by the Second Amendment and as judge Benitez stated, analogous to musket balls and powder, not knives.

...

So now that EVERY judge/justice knows that there is no historical evidence of ammunition/capacity ban, anti-2A judges will do a lot of hand waving to justify using some other argument like military use or knife analogy. [But as already stated by judge Benitez, good try but won't pass Bruen test]

But what appears as hand-waving to us, carries legal weight. Benitez said one thing, but another judge, in another federal district wrote a decision that absolutely says that laws written to temper "Bowie knife crime", are analogous to laws restricting magazine capacities, therefore the LCM section of NJ's assault weapon law is constitutional. And the reason the standard was different for that section of the law, vs. that which covered the AR15, is spelled out in the decision. He wasn't applying Bruen's history and tradition standard, he based that part of the decision (p.55) on the categorical ban language in Heller:

"This argument, however, brings the Court back to its conclusion: the similarity of the Assault Firearms Law's AR-15 Provision to the issues treated
in Heller. State Defendants' argument fails because, like in Heller, the Assault Firearms Law categorically bans a type of weapon that is commonly used
for self-defense."

That's an important distinction here because, without that, he would've easily applied the ridiculous (to us) Bowie knife analogy to the AR15 part too. Like you said somewhere upstream in the thread, this is something supreme court will have to eventually weigh in on, but I sense a lot of reluctance to wade into this issue, regardless of how muddy the water is between different courts looking at the same questions.

eta: And FTR, the court didn't attempt to deny that magazines fall within the scope of the 2A. They embrace that concept citing Miller. then turn around and weaponize it against us (p.57).

 

[tarosean]

The reason LCMs can be regulated is because such regulations are historically consistent with those aimed at controlling Bowie knives, therefore similar attempts to subdue modern mass shootings are the same thing. The mental gymnastics to reach that conclusion are astounding.

excerpt:
"Thus, while a few outlier States implemented near-total restrictions on Bowie knives, these restrictions overall fanned the basis for a tradition of prohibiting a subset of arms that could be useful and had become common for self-defense yet nevertheless posed a threat to public safety."

It wasn't until 2017 that TX made them legal..

 

[LiveLife]

But what appears as hand-waving to us, carries legal weight. Benitez said one thing, but another judge, in another federal district wrote a decision that absolutely says that laws written to temper "Bowie knife crime", are analogous to laws restricting magazine capacities, therefore the LCM section of NJ's assault weapon law is constitutional.

As Mark Smith pointed out in post #505 and Anthony Miranda pointed out in post #507, this was an anti-2A court and would have ruled for ban on both rifle and magazine.

The fact that this court ruled against rifle ban is remarkable and shows eventuality of Bruen methodology being the "binding law" of the land.

As to regulating ammunition capacity (Note, not magazine as Supreme Court and other courts have already ruled that magazines are "arms" protected by the Second Amendment), judge Benitez with CA attorneys already proved there is no historical evidence (If there was, it would have been identified in Duncan ruling but there wasn't any qualifying "analogues") and that ship has already sailed for good. So now anti-2A courts cannot use that approach and will have to use some other argument to justify ammunition capacity ban and that's why we have seen "military type" argument and "bowie knife" argument for this case.

But you are correct that anti-2A courts will continue to defy Supreme Court rulings and rule for bans until Supreme Court makes clear rulings on AW and magazine/ammunition ban.

Thankfully, we may see that happen on their next term and sooner the better.

And justices Thomas, Alito and Kavanaugh already indicated how they will rule so Second Amendment does not become a "second class right".

 

[LiveLife]

Adding to post #507 regarding Cheeseman v Platkin (NJ AW ban) and consolidated ANJRPC v Platkin / Ellman v Platkin (NJ AW/Magazine ban) cases - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-21#post-12952220

Mark Smith from Four Boxes Diner discuss how federal district court judge Sheridan misapplied Bruen methodology when ruling NJ ban on larger than 10 round capacity magazine constitutional.

Federal Judge Make Massive Mistake in Huge 2A Case ...

A Federal District Court judge issued a somewhat favorable 2A ruling in a case arising from NJ's ban on AR-15s and so-called large-capacity magazines. Mark Smith Four Boxes Diner analyzes the decision.

0:00 Massive 2A Decision​

2:32 Three Cases & Two Parts​

3:20 AR-15 Ban Issue​

6:51 Burden on Gov't & In Common Use Ownership v Use​

10:40 Sloppy Reasoning By Judge​

13:20 Judge's Poor Job on Magazine Ban Issue​

18:05 Bad Error in Mag Ban Arguments​

21:20 Thank You!​

FEDERAL JUDGE MAKE MASSIVE MISTAKES IN HUGE 2A CASE...

A Federal District Court judge issued a somewhat favorable 2A ruling in a case arising from NJ's ban on AR-15s and so-called large-capacity magazines. Mark S...

www.youtube.com

 

[Basura Blanca]

The fact that this court ruled against rifle ban is remarkable and shows eventuality of Bruen methodology being the "binding law" of the land.

I'm not disputing it's a good thing and to our advantage, but the judge actually ignored Bruen when weighing the rifle ban part of the case. It's in the quote from the opinion in my last post. Heller dictates that categorical bans on firearms aren't kosher. Adding to that, where Bruen *was* applied (to the LCM ban part), it was done very poorly and stretched the fabric of logic to its limit. More importantly though, it applied "history and tradition" from post-reconstruction era laws. That part shouldn't be ignored. If you get a chance, go read the link to Eveytown's amended brief. The way the anti-rights community wishes to deal with Bruen is to set the bar for "history and tradition" past 1868 and not get mired in finding identically worded edicts from the past. The problem with that (for us), is that the supreme court 8-1 agreed with watering down "history and traditon" in Rahimi which greatly empowers the other side.

And again, most unfortunately, what Benitez said doesn't trump what the judge in Cheeseman said. It's merely two competing visions of the same law being interpreted. What worries me is that there's a lot of room for other cases where this happens, especially now that "judge shopping" came under fire for the lower courts, and attempts to create an enforceable code of ethics and even term limits for the supreme court are being entertained.

This is why I stress that overreliance on the judicial branch is not sustainable.

 

[LiveLife]

Yes, I agree and your comments/sentiment is shared by Mark Smith's sentiment of post #515 - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-21#post-12953915

We really do need some clarification of Second Amendment protection expanding to "modern" types of arms/accessories from Supreme Court sooner than later.

 

[LiveLife]

IT'S ABOUT TIME.

We finally have "modern" magazine fed semi-auto rifle case ruled on merits by a circuit court (en banc) going to the Supreme Court so the "Originalist" majority justices can make their FINAL ruling.

Update to Bianchi v Frosh now Brown (MD AW ban) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-18#post-12905051

Not surprisingly, 4th Circuit en banc panel ruled for AW ban using the "military weapon" argument (Since judge Benitez proved with CA attorneys in Miller v Bonta there was no historical tradition analogous evidence of arms ban) - https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fi...2968222/2024.08.06_114_OPINION.pdf?1722968222

And FINALLY, now the case goes to the Supreme Court for justices Kavanaugh, Thomas, Alito to expand Second Amendment protection to "modern" types of arms in common use that did not exist at the time of founding so the Second Amendment stops being a "second class right" and modern arms owners can stop being second class citizens.

FPC Taking Maryland's "Assault Weapons" Ban to Supreme Court Following Fourth Circuit Decision - https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc_...preme_court_following_fourth_circuit_decision

August 6, 2024 – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has issued a highly flawed en banc (full court) decision on the merits upholding Maryland’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” in Bianchi v. Brown, an FPC Second Amendment strategic lawsuit filed in December 2020. The opinion can be found at firearmspolicy.org/bianchi.​

​

“FPC will take the Fourth Circuit’s terrible decision to the Supreme Court without delay. Our objective is simple: End all bans on so-called ‘assault weapons’ nationwide. And we look forward to doing just that,” said FPC President Brandon Combs.​

​

The Bianchi case is part of FPC’s high-impact FPC Law strategic litigation program to eliminate immoral laws and create a world of maximal liberty. FPC is joined in the litigation by three individual FPC members, a Maryland firearms retailer, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.​

​

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court declined to take up the case from a pre-judgment posture. However, this will be the first petition for certiorari in a case regarding “assault weapons” from a final judgment since the Court ruled in Bruen in 2022.​

 

[armoredman]

Please let them take the case, and end this madness!

 

[Ignition Override]

LiveLife: some of you gents certainly spend lots of time explaining this issue.

This must seem like a part time job.

What motivated me to attempt to find and maybe understand the basics of this case in NJ is the fact that a gun club board member is from MA, and a guy I correspond with lives in MA, which now —or by next week—seems to have the most restrictive gun laws in the US.

 

[LiveLife]

LiveLife: some of you gents certainly spend lots of time explaining this issue.

Bianchi AW ban case is similar to CA's Miller AW ban case, Cheeseman/ANJRPC/Ellman NJ AW ban cases and IL PICA AW ban cases along with many other AW/magazine ban cases.
It's not a war that we declared rather a war that was declared upon us by the antis.

Growing up and living in CA past several decades, I lived through all the endless crazy CA gun control/AW/magazine ban. While initially these "infringements" on 2A were campaigned as sensible/reasonable/common sense gun control reforms, now gloves are off and the antis are foaming at the mouth calling for literal gun confiscation on national scale.

Thanks to pro-2A organizations like Cal Gun Foundation/CRPA, we have started our push back and achieved many legal successes in CA and now I support FPC, GOA, SAF, NAGR and others in pushing back on national basis against relentless attack by the antis.

But this is nothing new ... majority mob rule with desire to take away our guns existed all the way back in colonial days.

And gun owners are the new minority group that needs "equal protection" under the Bill of Rights and the "Originalist" Supreme Court majority justices are dead set on doing that, as intended by the founders so gun owners treated as "second class citizens" and Second Amendment as "second class right" for decades is finally stopped.

Long live the Republic and godspeed.

 

[LiveLife]

Adding to post #518 Bianchi v Frosh now Brown (MD AW ban) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-21#post-12954768

Federal Judges Caught Intentionally Manipulating 2A Cases ...

The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in its Bianchi decision offered some interesting insights into the process about how the ruling was decided. Mark Smith Four Boxes Diner discusses.

0:00 Shocking Revelation in Bianchi Case​

2:05 Why This Matters So Much​

4:09 What Happened So Far & Timeline​

8:50 Why The Court Did This...​

14:33 The Good News!​

16:05 Thank You​

MAJOR BREAKING 2A NEWS: FEDERAL JUDGES CAUGHT INTENTIONALLY MANIPULATING 2A CASES...

The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in its Bianchi decision offered some interesting insights into the process about how the ruling was decided. M...

www.youtube.com

 

[Basura Blanca]

So in a nutshell, the 4th circuit said that so-called assault weapons fail to clear the first hurdle because of the vagueness of Heller with respect to types of weapons, but barring that, it would fail because "regulating excessively dangerous weapons once it becomes clear that they are exacting an inordinate toll on public safety and societal wellbeing" is consistent with history and tradition. They essentially are saying that Bruen is open-ended enough that similar laws have existed prior to meet some desired ends, therefore this is constitutional.

This isn't any more radical than what's been rejected in other post-Bruen cases so far.

As for some exuberance of select justices of the supreme court to take on these high stakes 2A cases, I'm just not seeing it. I wish it were true, but I'm betting this gets denied cert in spite of the effort. And along the way, we're left with a *lot* more cases in the lower courts being decided along the same (flawed as it is to us) logic. I want to be wrong about this, but that's my gut at the moment.

 

[Basura Blanca]

Please let them take the case, and end this madness!

If enough of these lawsuits continue to be decided one direction, what makes you think the supreme court would be compelled to come in and erase it all away? That's the gamble of rolling the dice so many times, in so many different legal venues, asking for the same controversy to be weighed. This is the folly of being overly reliant on the judicial to sort it all out.

 

[armoredman]

I'd rather think there is a hope, rather than give up.