NJ criminalizes 10+ round high capacity magazines today

[BasicHumanUnit]

Good one

I’m sure the NRA would love to use that in front of the Supreme Court

^^^^^^
Nearly 170,000 posts.....and the moron hasn't learned a damn thing.
Probably the dumbest ************ on the entire forum....and probably the most miserable because you CAN NOT have a life and have that many posts.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Normal, law abiding people, when attacked, do not have help...they are usually alone, isolated and only have what they can carry with them. So any limit on the number of bullets a normal, law abiding individual can carry in their gun is a threat to their life.....

criminals will get any magazines they want, and mass shooters don't need them to murder lots of helpless people in gun free zones...

Still,
The 2nd Amendment was not written for personal defense.
It specifically addressed government corruption, overreach and tyranny.

Fortunately, this has GREATLY subsided since Nov 2016.
But as in NJ and anywhere there are liberal imbeciles begging to be squashed by evil men,
the imbeciles WILL eventually get back in power and it's almost certain the next time, they will shred the Constitution to pieces. Which is why it's critical Trump pack the courts with Constitution respecting Judges.

I would guess that the greatest test of the will of the American people will come shortly after Dems regain control of the government.

The Constitution will fail to defend you.....
If YOU fail to defend the Constitution.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

From what I read on social media. Nobody in NJ is turning in mags. They are laughing and mocking the governor on the internet forums. 89 cops in one of the police depts said they aren’t giving up their mags so arrest them and figure out who’s going to patrol while they are in jail. It’s an uenforceable law just like the Connecticut assault rifle registration law.

If you decide not to turn in your illegal magazines.....hide them

Just don’t try to use one at a shooting range, don’t try to sell one, dont get caught with them in your car, don’t try to use it

Has the same effect

So what your saying is don't freely exercise a Constitutional Right.

All rights have restrictions where public safety is s consideration.

Yes...you can't use your legal gun to shoot innocent people without cause..... that is the restriction for public safety, possession and carrying a gun is not an issue until you use the gun illegally.

Good

Let the NRA argue why private citizens need for large capacity magazines outweighs the states need to protect public safety

Criminals don't follow the law

From what I read on social media. Nobody in NJ is turning in mags. They are laughing and mocking the governor on the internet forums. 89 cops in one of the police depts said they aren’t giving up their mags so arrest them and figure out who’s going to patrol while they are in jail. It’s an uenforceable law just like the Connecticut assault rifle registration law.

If you decide not to turn in your illegal magazines.....hide them

Just don’t try to use one at a shooting range, don’t try to sell one, dont get caught with them in your car, don’t try to use it

Has the same effect

So what your saying is don't freely exercise a Constitutional Right.

Explain

Shall not be infringed, no further explanation required.

 

[eagle1462010]

A magazine is not a gun

Did you have a point, Jake?

Try to keep up Skippy

The thread title says gun confiscation
There is no gun confiscation

Sure, Jake. Sure.

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.

To which well regulated militia do you belong?

It's called the family militia.............break into my house and we will militia your ass............Stay the **** away and you are safe...

Oh..........goodie.........the left can't ban guns so now they try and take away the ammo...............Bunch of Wankers..........

How many freely have given them up...........hmmm...........to hell with the left............Shall not be infringed...............keep pushing Mr. Mueller........

 

[eagle1462010]

This will eventually go to the Supreme Court

In the aftermath of Sandy Hook, Parkland, Las Vegas......let them tell States they have no right to regulate the lethality of arms available to the public

And you will lose there.............taking away the ammo makes certain weapons useless and you know it...........Oh......you lost two seats there..........poor thing.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

From what I read on social media. Nobody in NJ is turning in mags. They are laughing and mocking the governor on the internet forums. 89 cops in one of the police depts said they aren’t giving up their mags so arrest them and figure out who’s going to patrol while they are in jail. It’s an uenforceable law just like the Connecticut assault rifle registration law.

If you decide not to turn in your illegal magazines.....hide them

Just don’t try to use one at a shooting range, don’t try to sell one, dont get caught with them in your car, don’t try to use it

Has the same effect

So what your saying is don't freely exercise a Constitutional Right.

All rights have restrictions where public safety is s consideration.

"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem."

 

[Faun]

A magazine is not a gun

Did you have a point, Jake?

Try to keep up Skippy

The thread title says gun confiscation
There is no gun confiscation

Sure, Jake. Sure.

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.

To which well regulated militia do you belong?

It's called the family militia.............break into my house and we will militia your ass............Stay the **** away and you are safe...

Oh..........goodie.........the left can't ban guns so now they try and take away the ammo...............Bunch of Wankers..........

How many freely have given them up...........hmmm...........to hell with the left............Shall not be infringed...............keep pushing Mr. Mueller........

What a pity you can't post anything but stupid. No one's ammo is being taken away.

 

[eagle1462010]

From what I read on social media. Nobody in NJ is turning in mags. They are laughing and mocking the governor on the internet forums. 89 cops in one of the police depts said they aren’t giving up their mags so arrest them and figure out who’s going to patrol while they are in jail. It’s an uenforceable law just like the Connecticut assault rifle registration law.

If you decide not to turn in your illegal magazines.....hide them

Just don’t try to use one at a shooting range, don’t try to sell one, dont get caught with them in your car, don’t try to use it

Has the same effect

So what your saying is don't freely exercise a Constitutional Right.

All rights have restrictions where public safety is s consideration.

"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem."

 

[rightwinger]

I live in NJ
It is a small state

Bring your 30 round magazine to the local range and they will send you packing. They don’t want to lose their license to operate because you want to play Rambo

Take your gun into the woods and start firing long duration bursts. The sound will carry for miles and local police will be waiting by your truck when you come out to check you out

Get pulled over and have the police find them in your car. Lose your car and explain to your wife it was worth it so you could play Rambo

^^^^^
One of the Statist asswipes who couldn't wait for this to pass.
Maduro has something for you....don't forget your knee pads.

Long overdo

 

[rightwinger]

Can anyone explain why they would need a larger magazine?

 

[eagle1462010]

Did you have a point, Jake?

Try to keep up Skippy

The thread title says gun confiscation
There is no gun confiscation

Sure, Jake. Sure.

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.

To which well regulated militia do you belong?

It's called the family militia.............break into my house and we will militia your ass............Stay the **** away and you are safe...

Oh..........goodie.........the left can't ban guns so now they try and take away the ammo...............Bunch of Wankers..........

How many freely have given them up...........hmmm...........to hell with the left............Shall not be infringed...............keep pushing Mr. Mueller........

What a pity you can't post anything but stupid. No one's ammo is being taken away.

Many guns have 10 round mags...............so STFU...........we know your ultimate goal and you can shove it up your ass.........clear it up for you.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

What the court found:

"Today we address whether one of New Jersey’s responses to the rise in active and mass shooting incidents in the United States—a law that limits the amount of ammunition that may be held in a single firearm magazine to no more than ten rounds—violates the Second Amendment, the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. We conclude that it does not. 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. The law also does not violate the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause because it does not require gun owners to surrender their magazines but instead allows them to retain modified magazines or register firearms that have magazines that cannot be modified. 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. We will therefore affirm the District Court’s order denying Plaintiffs’ motion to preliminarily enjoin enforcement of the law. "....

Bravo to the Court. It is about time they limit gun magazines. Putting the public safety first and not gun lunatics. These are very reasonable laws except to the crazed fringe.

Shall not be infringed....

Imbecile, restrictions on firearms are not new nor have they persisted unchallenged. Such as:

Fully automatic firearms, machine guns, silencers, sawed off shotguns, sawed off rifles, etc...

The state needs to show they have a legitimate public safety interest in banning those magazines

And there is none. It doesn't stop criminals it doesn't stop mass shooters...

Doesn’t mean a state has to make it easier for someone to slaughter a classroom full of first graders or innocent church or concert goers

A pistol or assault rifle with a large magazine is the weapon of choice
We do not need to make those tools readily available

 

[2aguy]

Can anyone explain why they would need a larger magazine?

Because you don't know how many bullets you will need to save your life or the life of your family. And since you are usually alone when you are attacked, and there will be no police, you are on your own against one or more violent, armed attackers. Adrenaline released during a violent attack makes it difficult to do small motor actions with your hands, like changing a magazine, which is why having 15-19 rounds in a pistol magazine is so important...also, if you are injured, changing the magazine becomes even harder, especially if your arm or hand is injured......

That's why.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

What the court found:

"Today we address whether one of New Jersey’s responses to the rise in active and mass shooting incidents in the United States—a law that limits the amount of ammunition that may be held in a single firearm magazine to no more than ten rounds—violates the Second Amendment, the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. We conclude that it does not. 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. The law also does not violate the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause because it does not require gun owners to surrender their magazines but instead allows them to retain modified magazines or register firearms that have magazines that cannot be modified. 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. We will therefore affirm the District Court’s order denying Plaintiffs’ motion to preliminarily enjoin enforcement of the law. "....

Bravo to the Court. It is about time they limit gun magazines. Putting the public safety first and not gun lunatics. These are very reasonable laws except to the crazed fringe.

Shall not be infringed....

Imbecile, restrictions on firearms are not new nor have they persisted unchallenged. Such as:

Fully automatic firearms, machine guns, silencers, sawed off shotguns, sawed off rifles, etc...

The state needs to show they have a legitimate public safety interest in banning those magazines

And there is none. It doesn't stop criminals it doesn't stop mass shooters...

I live in NJ and would love to see it go to the Supreme Court

Let NJ point to mass killings at Sandy Hook, Parkland, Vegas and many other locations
Let NJ point to gang members using large capacity magazines to spray gunfire on a crowd

Let the NRA point out all the times a private citizen has needed more than a ten round magazine to defend themselves
Let the NRA explain why hunters need more than a ten round magazine

Let the Conservative court tell the state they are not allowed to limit the lethality of weapons available to private citizens

 

[rightwinger]

This will eventually go to the Supreme Court

In the aftermath of Sandy Hook, Parkland, Las Vegas......let them tell States they have no right to regulate the lethality of arms available to the public

And you will lose there.............taking away the ammo makes certain weapons useless and you know it...........Oh......you lost two seats there..........poor thing.

I am anxious to see how our conservative judges will react

Will they rule that states can not regulate the lethality of weapons allowed in private hands?

Even Heller did not go that far

 

[rightwinger]

Shall not be infringed....

Imbecile, restrictions on firearms are not new nor have they persisted unchallenged. Such as:

Fully automatic firearms, machine guns, silencers, sawed off shotguns, sawed off rifles, etc...

The state needs to show they have a legitimate public safety interest in banning those magazines

And there is none. It doesn't stop criminals it doesn't stop mass shooters...

I live in NJ and would love to see it go to the Supreme Court

Let NJ point to mass killings at Sandy Hook, Parkland, Vegas and many other locations
Let NJ point to gang members using large capacity magazines to spray gunfire on a crowd

Let the NRA point out all the times a private citizen has needed more than a ten round magazine to defend themselves
Let the NRA explain why hunters need more than a ten round magazine

Let the Conservative court tell the state they are not allowed to limit the lethality of weapons available to private citizens

Interesting video

Now, let’s see a 17 year old do it with hundreds of screaming people around him

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

^^^^^
One of the Statist asswipes who couldn't wait for this to pass.
Maduro has something for you....don't forget your knee pads.

Long overdo

It's long....... "Overdue" ......point proven.

Or were you referring to your servicing Dictators?

 

[eagle1462010]

This will eventually go to the Supreme Court

In the aftermath of Sandy Hook, Parkland, Las Vegas......let them tell States they have no right to regulate the lethality of arms available to the public

And you will lose there.............taking away the ammo makes certain weapons useless and you know it...........Oh......you lost two seats there..........poor thing.

I am anxious to see how our conservative judges will react

Will they rule that states can not regulate the lethality of weapons allowed in private hands?

Even Heller did not go that far

I'm sure you are..............we aren't giving up our guns........and taking away the mags makes them useless and is exactly why the gun grabbers Wankers are pushing this....................

Your side will not stop until you find away around the 2nd..............you actually think we believe your BS when you say overwise........

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

This will eventually go to the Supreme Court

In the aftermath of Sandy Hook, Parkland, Las Vegas......let them tell States they have no right to regulate the lethality of arms available to the public

And you will lose there.............taking away the ammo makes certain weapons useless and you know it...........Oh......you lost two seats there..........poor thing.

I am anxious to see how our conservative judges will react

Will they rule that states can not regulate the lethality of weapons allowed in private hands?

Even Heller did not go that far

I've posted 2 different videos that prove there is no viable reason for limiting capacity it certainly doesn't effect anyone but law abiding citizens.

 

[2aguy]

This will eventually go to the Supreme Court

In the aftermath of Sandy Hook, Parkland, Las Vegas......let them tell States they have no right to regulate the lethality of arms available to the public

And you will lose there.............taking away the ammo makes certain weapons useless and you know it...........Oh......you lost two seats there..........poor thing.

I am anxious to see how our conservative judges will react

Will they rule that states can not regulate the lethality of weapons allowed in private hands?

Even Heller did not go that far

They went that far in Caetano v Massachusetts....this is a follow up on the D.C. v Heller decision when the lower court tried to ban stun guns...of all things.....Alito discusses the "dangerousness" of a weapon and how that is irrelevant to the 2nd Amendment...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).



Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.

Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.

--------

As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).

That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056

. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment.

First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”). Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly. Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his