NJ criminalizes 10+ round high capacity magazines today

[2aguy]

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...

 

[Faun]

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.

 

[2aguy]

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...

Just because we've had gun laws for a long time doesn't mean they are legal, nor constitutional. The Sullivan Act passed in NYC in 1911 was specifically to restrict newer immigrants, and minorities from being able to legally carry guns. It was passed so only friends on the Mayor, and elites could have guns. It still stands today. Totally unconstitutional.

The Sullivan act was created to give gangs the upper hand against the enemies of City Hall...

http://nypost.com/2012/01/16/the-strange-birth-of-nys-gun-laws/

Problem was the gangs worked for Tammany. The Democratic machine used them asshtarkers (sluggers), enforcing discipline at the polls and intimidating the opposition. Gang leaders like Monk Eastman were even employed as informal “sheriffs,” keeping their turf under Tammany control.

The Tammany Tiger needed to rein in the gangs without completely crippling them. Enter Big Tim with the perfect solution: Ostensibly disarm the gangs — and ordinary citizens, too — while still keeping them on the streets.

In fact, he gave the game away during the debate on the bill, which flew through Albany: “I want to make it so the young thugs in my district will get three years for carrying dangerous weapons instead of getting a sentence in the electric chair a year from now.”

Sullivan knew the gangs would flout the law, but appearances were more important than results. Young toughs took to sewing the pockets of their coats shut, so that cops couldn’t plant firearms on them, and many gangsters stashed their weapons inside their girlfriends’ “bird cages” — wire-mesh fashion contraptions around which women would wind their hair.
----Ordinary citizens, on the other hand, were disarmed, which solved another problem: Gangsters had been bitterly complaining to Tammany that their victims sometimes shot back at them.

So gang violence didn’t drop under the Sullivan Act — and really took off after the passage of Prohibition in 1920. Spectacular gangland rubouts — like the 1932 machine-gunning of “Mad Dog” Coll in a drugstore phone booth on 23rd Street — became the norm.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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...

You calling anyone an imbecile is laughable

 

[Faun]

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...

Just because we've had gun laws for a long time doesn't mean they are legal, nor constitutional. The Sullivan Act passed in NYC in 1911 was specifically to restrict newer immigrants, and minorities from being able to legally carry guns. It was passed so only friends on the Mayor, and elites could have guns. It still stands today. Totally unconstitutional.

All laws are legal and constitutional until they are deemed otherwise by the judicial branch. Sucks for you, I know.

 

[2aguy]

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.

 

[Anathema]

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.

Now try to get NJ residents to comply. It’s not going to happen there any more than it does here in MA where we have a similar restriction.

 

[Faun]

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...

You calling anyone an imbecile is laughable

Aww, how can I survive that?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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.

Now try to get NJ residents to comply. It’s not going to happen there any more than it does here in MA where we have a similar restriction.

But the left loons feel warm and fuzzy....until some criminal with an illegal mag ventilates them

Oh nevermind criminals will turn theirs in

 

[Asclepias]

Cops already murdered one guy up there for not giving up his guns.

You should organize and lead some patriots to seek vengeance. Preferably with guns that have 30 round capacity.

 

[Asclepias]

New Jersey citizens who possess firearm magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition will be violating state law starting Tuesday.

NJ criminalizes 10+ round 'high capacity' magazines today


Trendy loons would say " They aren't trying to take the guns" lmfao....... These idiots wouldn't know if their ass was being taken from them lol.

If you need more than 10 bullets to hit your target, you need to go to the shooting range to learn how to shoot that weapon.

No one is taking any weapons from anyone.

Do they make 10 round only magazines for every gun out there?

If they don't how is a person supposed to use said firearm?

CA has had the 10 round thing for a couple of years now. Its pretty easy to order them online or buy them in stores in your state.

 

[rightwinger]

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

 

[Anathema]

But the left loons feel warm and fuzzy....until some criminal with an illegal mag ventilates them

Oh nevermind criminals will turn theirs in

I’ve stopped being sympathetic to people who have allowed themselves to be disarmed or refuse to protect themselves.

 

[Asclepias]

New Jersey citizens who possess firearm magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition will be violating state law starting Tuesday.

NJ criminalizes 10+ round 'high capacity' magazines today


Trendy loons would say " They aren't trying to take the guns" lmfao....... These idiots wouldn't know if their ass was being taken from them lol.

If you need more than 10 bullets to hit your target, you need to go to the shooting range to learn how to shoot that weapon.

No one is taking any weapons from anyone.

Multiple targets.

Also, it ain't like on TV. One shot may not stop the attack.

So, if you had to reload, you are afraid the targets would have run away???

If I had to reload I'd be afraid criminal scum like you would kill me.

Youd be afraid of a child if you didnt have a gun at all.

 

[Pilot1]

All laws are legal and constitutional until they are deemed otherwise by the judicial branch. Sucks for you, I know.

I know to a Statist, government can do no wrong. However, governments make mistakes and do illegal things all the time. Slavery was once legal, and sanctioned by government. Was that right?

However, doesn't suck for me because I can legally own, and carry just about any firearm I want.

 

[2aguy]

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

A guy with a 5 shot, pump action shotgun murdered 20 college students in Crimea....the Parkland shooter killed 18...it is the gun free zone, not the magazine capacity that allows the killing to be so bad....

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

Large-Capacity Magazines and the Casualty Counts in Mass Shootings: The Plausibility of Linkages by Gary Kleck :: SSRN

Do bans on large-capacity magazines (LCMs) for semiautomatic firearms have significant potential for reducing the number of deaths and injuries in mass shootings?
The most common rationale for an effect of LCM use is that they allow mass killers to fire many rounds without reloading.
LCMs are used is less than 1/3 of 1% of mass shootings.
News accounts of 23 shootings in which more than six people were killed or wounded and LCMs were used, occurring in the U.S. in 1994-2013, were examined.
There was only one incident in which the shooter may have been stopped by bystander intervention when he tried to reload.
In all of these 23 incidents the shooter possessed either multiple guns or multiple magazines, meaning that the shooter, even if denied LCMs, could have continued firing without significant interruption by either switching loaded guns or by changing smaller loaded magazines with only a 2-4 second delay for each magazine change.
Finally, the data indicate that mass shooters maintain slow enough rates of fire such that the time needed to reload would not increase the time between shots and thus the time available for prospective victims to escape.

--------

We did not employ the oft-used definition of “mass murder” as a homicide in which four or more victims were killed, because most of these involve just four to six victims (Duwe 2007), which could therefore have involved as few as six rounds fired, a number that shooters using even ordinary revolvers are capable of firing without reloading.

LCMs obviously cannot help shooters who fire no more rounds than could be fired without LCMs, so the inclusion of “nonaffectable” cases with only four to six victims would dilute the sample, reducing the percent of sample incidents in which an LCM might have affected the number of casualties.

Further, had we studied only homicides with four or more dead victims, drawn from the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports, we would have missed cases in which huge numbers of people were shot, and huge numbers of rounds were fired, but three or fewer of the victims died.


For example, in one widely publicized shooting carried out in Los Angeles on February 28, 1997, two bank robbers shot a total of 18 people - surely a mass shooting by any reasonable standard (Table 1).

Yet, because none of the people they shot died, this incident would not qualify as a mass murder (or even murder of any kind).

Exclusion of such incidents would bias the sample against the proposition that LCM use increases the number of victims by excluding incidents with large numbers of victims. We also excluded shootings in which more than six persons were shot over the entire course of the incident but shootings occurred in multiple locations with no more than six people shot in any one of the locations, and substantial periods of time intervened between episodes of shooting. An example is the series of killings committed by Rodrick Dantzler on July 7, 2011.

Once eligible incidents were identified, we searched through news accounts for details related to whether the use of LCMs could have influenced the casualty counts.

Specifically, we searched for

(1) the number of magazines in the shooter’s immediate possession,

(2) the capacity of the largest magazine,

(3) the number of guns in the shooter’s immediate possession during the incident,

(4) the types of guns possessed,

(5) whether the shooter reloaded during the incident,

(6) the number of rounds fired,

(7) the duration of the shooting from the first shot fired to the last, and (8) whether anyone intervened to stop the shooter.

Findings How Many Mass Shootings were Committed Using LCMs?

We identified 23 total incidents in which more than six people were shot at a single time and place in the U.S. from 1994 through 2013 and that were known to involve use of any magazines with capacities over ten rounds.


Table 1 summarizes key details of the LCMinvolved mass shootings relevant to the issues addressed in this paper.

(Table 1 about here) What fraction of all mass shootings involve LCMs?

There is no comprehensive listing of all mass shootings available for the entire 1994-2013 period, but the most extensive one currently available is at the Shootingtracker.com website, which only began its coverage in 2013.

-----


-----
The offenders in LCM-involved mass shootings were also known to have reloaded during 14 of the 23 (61%) incidents with magazine holding over 10 rounds.

The shooters were known to have not reloaded in another two of these 20 incidents and it could not be determined if they reloaded in the remaining seven incidents.

Thus, even if the shooters had been denied LCMs, we know that most of them definitely would have been able to reload smaller detachable magazines without interference from bystanders since they in fact did change magazines.

The fact that this percentage is less than 100% should not, however, be interpreted to mean that the shooters were unable to reload in the other nine incidents.

It is possible that the shooters could also have reloaded in many of these nine shootings, but chose not to do so, or did not need to do so in order to fire all the rounds they wanted to fire. This is consistent with the fact that there has been at most only one mass shootings in twenty years in which reloading a semiautomatic firearm might have been blocked by bystanders intervening and thereby stopping the shooter from doing all the shooting he wanted to do. All we know is that in two incidents the shooter did not reload, and news accounts of seven other incidents did not mention whether the offender reloaded.

----

For example, a story in the Hartford Courant about the Sandy Hook elementary school killings in 2012 was headlined “Shooter Paused, and Six Escaped,” the text asserting that as many as six children may have survived because the shooter paused to reload (December 23, 2012). ''

The author of the story, however, went on to concede that this was just a speculation by an unnamed source, and that it was also possible that some children simply escaped when the killer was shooting other children.

There was no reliable evidence that the pauses were due to the shooter reloading, rather than his guns jamming or the shooter simply choosing to pause his shooting while his gun was still loaded.

The plausibility of the “victims escape” rationale depends on the average rates of fire that shooters in mass shootings typically maintain.

If they fire very fast, the 2-4 seconds it takes to change box-type detachable magazines could produce a slowing of the rate of fire that the shooters otherwise would have maintained without the magazine changes, increasing the average time between rounds fired and potentially allowing more victims to escape during the betweenshot intervals.

On the other hand, if mass shooters fire their guns with the average interval between shots lasting more than 2-4 seconds, the pauses due to additional magazine changes would be no longer than the pauses the shooter typically took between shots even when not reloading.

In that case, there would be no more opportunity for potential victims to escape than there would have been without the additional magazine changes

-----


SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

In sum, in nearly all LCM-involved mass shootings, the time it takes to reload a detachable magazine is no greater than the average time between shots that the shooter takes anyway when not reloading.

Consequently, there is no affirmative evidence that reloading detachable magazines slows mass shooters’ rates of fire, and thus no affirmative evidence that the number of victims who could escape the killers due to additional pauses in the shooting is increased by the shooter’s need to change magazines.

 

[Asclepias]

But the left loons feel warm and fuzzy....until some criminal with an illegal mag ventilates them

Oh nevermind criminals will turn theirs in

I’ve stopped being sympathetic to people who have allowed themselves to be disarmed or refuse to protect themselves.

No one cares what you stopped doing.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Now try to get NJ residents to comply. It’s not going to happen there any more than it does here in MA where we have a similar restriction.

Easy to get them to comply
No need to knock on doors or perform large scale confiscations

Just ban them
If you choose to ignore the ban, then it is their problem

Take one to the gun range and you will be banned. Get pulled over with some in your trunk....lose your car
Try to sell them....get arrested

Over time, word will get out it is not worth having them

 

[miketx]

New Jersey citizens who possess firearm magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition will be violating state law starting Tuesday.

NJ criminalizes 10+ round 'high capacity' magazines today


Trendy loons would say " They aren't trying to take the guns" lmfao....... These idiots wouldn't know if their ass was being taken from them lol.

If you need more than 10 bullets to hit your target, you need to go to the shooting range to learn how to shoot that weapon.

No one is taking any weapons from anyone.

Multiple targets.

Also, it ain't like on TV. One shot may not stop the attack.

So, if you had to reload, you are afraid the targets would have run away???

If I had to reload I'd be afraid criminal scum like you would kill me.

Youd be afraid of a child if you didnt have a gun at all.

Send to the border and let Trump kill them.

 

[Faun]

All laws are legal and constitutional until they are deemed otherwise by the judicial branch. Sucks for you, I know.

I know to a Statist, government can do no wrong. However, governments make mistakes and do illegal things all the time. Slavery was once legal, and sanctioned by government. Was that right?

However, doesn't suck for me because I can legally own, and carry just about any firearm I want.

No, dumbfuck, it’s how our Constitution has worked since being ratified 230 years ago.