Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Posted: 11/16/2018 8:45:19 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/5/2018 5:11:43 PM EDT
[#1]
December 5, 2018. In a 2-1 decision, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit refused to stop the enforcement of New Jersey’s 10-round magazine ban. The majority, in an opinion by Judge Shwartz and joined by Judge Greenaway, both appointed by President Obama, held that the ban did not violate the Second Amendment because it reasonably advanced the State’s interest in reducing mass shootings without severely burdening the rights of law-abiding citizens.
Link Posted: 12/5/2018 6:16:02 PM EDT
[#2]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
December 5, 2018. In a 2-1 decision, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit refused to stop the enforcement of New Jersey’s 10-round magazine ban. The majority, in an opinion by Judge Shwartz and joined by Judge Greenaway, both appointed by President Obama, held that the ban did not violate the Second Amendment because it reasonably advanced the State’s interest in reducing mass shootings without severely burdening the rights of law-abiding citizens.
View Quote
Was there any doubt???
Link Posted: 12/6/2018 1:37:20 AM EDT
[#3]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
December 5, 2018. In a 2-1 decision, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit refused to stop the enforcement of New Jersey’s 10-round magazine ban. The majority, in an opinion by Judge Shwartz and joined by Judge Greenaway, both appointed by President Obama, held that the ban did not violate the Second Amendment because it reasonably advanced the State’s interest in reducing mass shootings without severely burdening the rights of law-abiding citizens.
View Quote
This is why the Executive matters...because it appoints judges who, in many instances, serve for decades - far longer than the presidents who appointed them. No surprise the Obamatard judges felt they had the latitude to depart from the scrutiny afforded laws affecting other Constitutional rights. I'm not sure this decision even passes the rational basis test, much less intermediate or strict scrutiny. The decision is quite arbitrary...why is 10 rounds OK? What if the state prohibited more than 6 rounds...or 3 rounds? Would the Obamatard judges think that was OK under the Constitution?
Link Posted: 12/6/2018 2:59:49 PM EDT
[#4]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
This is why the Executive matters...because it appoints judges who, in many instances, serve for decades - far longer than the presidents who appointed them. No surprise the Obamatard judges felt they had the latitude to depart from the scrutiny afforded laws affecting other Constitutional rights. I'm not sure this decision even passes the rational basis test, much less intermediate or strict scrutiny. The decision is quite arbitrary...why is 10 rounds OK? What if the state prohibited more than 6 rounds...or 3 rounds? Would the Obamatard judges think that was OK under the Constitution?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
December 5, 2018. In a 2-1 decision, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit refused to stop the enforcement of New Jersey’s 10-round magazine ban. The majority, in an opinion by Judge Shwartz and joined by Judge Greenaway, both appointed by President Obama, held that the ban did not violate the Second Amendment because it reasonably advanced the State’s interest in reducing mass shootings without severely burdening the rights of law-abiding citizens.
This is why the Executive matters...because it appoints judges who, in many instances, serve for decades - far longer than the presidents who appointed them. No surprise the Obamatard judges felt they had the latitude to depart from the scrutiny afforded laws affecting other Constitutional rights. I'm not sure this decision even passes the rational basis test, much less intermediate or strict scrutiny. The decision is quite arbitrary...why is 10 rounds OK? What if the state prohibited more than 6 rounds...or 3 rounds? Would the Obamatard judges think that was OK under the Constitution?
IT's never about rule of law for them.
It's about power.
That's what activist judges do. Rationalize however they have to, to get the result they want.
Invent a right? Okay. Text doesn't mean what is says? Okay.
Trump said something on the campaign and I think he's a big meanie head? Yeah I say it's no good.
etc
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top