Federal judge says New Jersey's ban on AR-15 rifles is unconstitutional
Source: AP
Updated 6:49 PM EDT, July 31, 2024
TRENTON, N.J. (AP) New Jerseys ban on the AR-15 rifle is unconstitutional, but the states cap on magazines over 10 rounds passes constitutional muster, a federal judge said Tuesday. U.S. District Judge Peter Sheridans 69-page opinion says he was compelled to rule as he did because of the Supreme Courts rulings in firearms cases, particularly the 2022 Bruen decision that expanded gun rights.
Sheridans ruling left both 2nd Amendment advocates and the state attorney general planning appeals. The judge temporarily delayed the order for 30 days. Pointing to the high courts precedents, Sheridan suggested Congress and the president could do more to curb gun-related violence nationwide.
It is hard to accept the Supreme Courts pronouncements that certain firearms policy choices are off the table when frequently, radical individuals possess and use these same firearms for evil purposes, he wrote.
Sheridan added: Where the Supreme Court has set for the law of our Nation, as a lower court, I am bound to follow it. ... This principle combined with the reckless inaction of our governmental leaders to address the mass shooting tragedy afflicting our Nation necessitates the Courts decision.
Read more: https://apnews.com/article/new-jersey-assault-rifle-ban-bcc4eddd3e2b216f6a9faad6c273be09
Irish_Dem
(55,825 posts)As the kids sit in their school rooms.
And grandma going to church?
sindri
(46 posts)if instead of bans we more effort on regulations - focus on requiring licensing that requires yearly training/testing or something like driving/hunting/fishing license but that would require more money to fund enforcement. I don't think we're ever going to get around the 2nd amendment rights unless we can get enough to amend the amendment.
Brainfodder
(7,156 posts)Welfare check anyone HOARDING ammo? Tipster rewards....
BumRushDaShow
(140,580 posts)States have tried that and immediately, the zealots sue. This is happening in Delaware right now -
By Christian Wade | The Center Square contributor May 17, 2024
(The Center Square) Delaware gun owners will be required to get a firearm permit under a bill signed into law by Gov. John Carney that immediately drew a lawsuit from gun rights groups. The Democratic-led proposal, signed by Carney on Thursday, will require Delaware residents to obtain a permit to purchase a handgun after undergoing fingerprinting and a background check and completing an approved firearm training course.
Backers of the plan argue that it would reduce gun violence, suicides and homicides and crack down on illegal "straw purchases" of handguns on behalf of those prohibited by law from possessing them.
"We have banned assault weapons, bump stocks, and high-capacity magazines. Weve passed red flag laws and prevented straw purchases," Carney said in remarks on Thursday. "And signing this piece of legislation is another important step forward to help keep our communities safe."
Shortly after Carney signed the legislation, a coalition of Second Amendment groups filed a lawsuit on behalf of five plaintiffs challenging the new law's constitutionality. The lawsuit, backed by the Delaware State Sportsmen's Association Inc. and Bridgeville Rifle and Pistol Club, argues that the fundamental civil rights of lawful gun owners in the First State are "being trampled on by overbearing legislation that defies controlling legal authority."
(snip)
https://www.thecentersquare.com/delaware/article_06e23020-146c-11ef-bbbb-675951f2a62c.html
In the above case, they don't even want an initial "training" course. A similar law was found "unconstitutional" in violation of the state Constitution in Oregon last year - https://www.police1.com/gun-legislation-law-enforcement/ore-gun-measure-requiring-background-check-safety-training-is-unconstitutional-judge-rules
This was despite a federal court earlier finding it okay - https://apnews.com/article/oregon-gun-control-law-ruling-da3778b8f6022c53a3cb940c4e4a6349
I expect those are all going up the judicial chain through appeals.
Lokee11
(240 posts)Honestly it would be nice to just get an amendment to the amendment stating that the original and current ENTIRE Second Amendment must be considered and not ignored -
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.
That bolded part seems pretty clear at least to me - and they have performed Gold Medal level mental gymnastics to just completely misinterpret / ignore it IMHO. So basically just need an amendment stating "READ THE ENTIRE 2ND AMENDMENT ASSHOLES!!!!"
I hate guns - have lost too many people to them, but have no problem with responsible gun ownership and most people are responsible. And hell if you want an AR-15 or some sort of other weapon of mass destruction, I am actually ok with that too. But just like if I had a funny car - I could drive it on the highway and would have to take it to a drag strip, I think you should have to take your AR-15 to a range or some designated place to use it. One should not be able to walk around with a loaded AR-15 or the like in public. The only reason that I can think of to have a weapon like that in public, is to either kill other people OR intimidate other people by making them think about the fact that you have a weapon that can kill them. As mentioned there should be required training and licensing that is periodically renewed, and there needs to be a national database that tracks ownership/registration of every weapon and the weapons unique serial number. Any gun found without a unique serial number should be considered contraband. Also, not sure how difficult or practical it would be but if possible, a "ballistic fingerprint" of every registered weapon should also be performed and placed into the database as well by the manufacturer. I do not know - but there has to be a better way.
FDT ✊!
LaMouffette
(2,225 posts)Prairie Gates
(2,570 posts)I guess it is, though...
groundloop
(12,134 posts)Certainly our nations top politicians at the time could not have possibly had the technical crystal ball to envision the powerful killing machines available now. So, in my most humble opinion, we should maintain a strict interpretation of the 2nd Amendment to only include weapons that were available when it was written. (Oh yeah, there's also that little bit about well regulated militias that everyone tends to ignore).
maxsolomon
(34,920 posts)Frankly, it's amazing we don't have MORE gun violence considering the US is absolutely saturated with SA firearms.
Aristus
(68,052 posts)is a staggering violation of the Constitutional rights of school shooters.
It's outrageous...
Bloody sarcasm emoji very much appropriate here.
FakeNoose
(35,297 posts)Oh that's right, such things hadn't been invented in 1789 when we ratified the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Nor did we have vaccinations, modern medicines, modern contraception, artificial hearts and kidneys, or combustion engine automobiles. I could go on - but you get it, we all do.
The Constitution is never going to be the final ruling for the way we live now, with the options we have available to us now. SCOTUS has gone off the deep end on "originalism" and it is affecting the judicial benches all the way down the line. Certain groups are using "originalism" because it bends the rules in their favor on certain subjects. Whenever it doesn't favor their side, originalism goes out the window.
Kid Berwyn
(17,658 posts)What Al Capone thought about the Tommy Gun.
ETA: Remember the violin case?
travelingthrulife
(385 posts)Got it.