Judge upholds Rhode Island's high-capacity gun magazine ban

[Aim1]

Interesting ruling in light of Bruen.




https://www.providencejournal.com/s...-outcome-second-amendment-rights/69727765007/

 

[Waveski]

Ok , I’ll be Captain Obvious—-

If there is a mass shooting in that state the perpetrator won’t give a hoot about such laws , but any law abiding citizen who may be in the position to intervene will be limited in terms of round count.

Preaching to the choir , I am.

 

[Aim1]

I thought after Bruen an interest balancing test was out?

 

[bernie]

The reality is, those that are after our firearms do not care what Bruen says. Unless there are repercussions for violating something like Bruen, this will continue indefinitely.

 

[Poper]

This decision should be overturned on appeal.

 

[TTv2]

How soon could this case reach SCOTUS?

Also, how quickly can a judge from the 1st Circuit do an emergency stay or hold on the law going into effect?

 

[Ignition Override]

Such a judge is blissfully unaware that Laws against, robbery, rape, carjacking, murder don't stop criminals from doing what they perceive as "justice", or what they are entitled to?

If any of my comment is not authorized here, I'll simply use my freedoms at AK files.

 

[BushMaster-15]

Laws are not intended to be passed on the predication of WHAT IF , MIGHT BE AND POTENTIAL OF !. Extremely vague to say the least .
Asteroids might also wipe out Rhode Island ,so WHAT precautions have they passed pertaining to that scenario

Time for an East coast disaster of Biblical portions !!.

 

[Waveski]

This decision should be overturned on appeal.

I hope you are right; could you expand as to why you are confident of that?

 

[TTv2]

I hope you are right; could you expand as to why you are confident of that?

Bruen case removed the two step approach and the means/interest bearing, which is the exact approach this filthy judge did.

 

[Navy87Guy]

That quote above just proves that the judge wasn’t ruling based on law and precedent - it’s personal bias and belief. The appeal should be a breeze, especially in light of Bruen and this judge’s obvious failure to take it into account.

 

[herrwalther]

Cause a mass shooter is really going to stop, make sure their magazine is state compliant, before shooting at groups of people. I am convinced anti-gunners don't think about anything logically.

 

[dweis]

Sadly, this ruling shows that judges lawmakers and judges don’t get two imported things. Firstly, large capacity magazines do not motivate anyone to be a killer. A killer is not motivated by weapons. In China, England, and other gun restrictive countries the weapon of choice is a knife. Second, even if the shooter is untrained changing a magazine is only going to take a few seconds. How far away can you get in few seconds? Not far enough.

In high school my physics teacher explained that lol things physical are extremely complicated. So, before one drew a conclusion based upon evidence it was critical to examine the validity of the evidence. He went on to say that why experts say is not evidence. Evidence is fact not opinion. So my guess is that the judge had no background in root issue, and the attorney’s on both side just spouted out what they learn in the pro and con gun media.

About six months ago i read a news article about a judge who enjoined a high capacity magazine ban. His reasoning was based upon research into home defense incidents in which multiple invaders entered a home. From that research he concluded and ruled that a high capacity magazine was an asset when it came to self defense. Smart judge. We need smarter judges.

 

[Poper]

Bruen case removed the two step approach and the means/interest bearing, which is the exact approach this filthy judge did.

Precisely.

 

[danmc]

The constitution does not use the term “irreparable harm”- it uses the term “shall not be infringed “. A fringe is an edge- the founders meant for our rights enumerated in the constitution to be enjoyed without government limits. Law schools and fools in robes have turned the entire meaning of the bill of rights upside down.

 

[GEM]

There is also research that higher capacity magazines contribute to more causalities in rampages. So a judge can pick that for a reason, despite Bruen supposedly voiding such decisions. Judges decide on their politics and then look for precedent. That's why the 'historical' standard is a double edged sword as the lower courts are searching for gun ban history.

The fault basically is Scotus not understanding or chosing not to understand or act in a strongly positive manner for the 2nd Amend. They prefer to be ambiguous, perhaps to show off their legal acumen or some political reason (a clear decision to remove gun restrictions removes the issue as a campaign issue for conservatives to fund raise).

They might have said two things in Bruen as compared to the historical rabbit hole:

1. Given the history of the Second Amend. no ban on semi automatic weapons, their configuration, ability to hold a certain number of rounds is constitutional. No ban on internal or external magazine capacity is constitutional. Instead they waffled in Heller (yes, they did) and still did in Bruen. They needed a direct statement and not to send decisions back down the stream for long time historical mining, dissents, appeals, etc. They could have decided on the 4 cases quickly. If they thought they had to be reconsidered, well, Clarence get off the can and YOU and your buddies consider them.

2. Sensitive locales - reading law reviews, they are critiqued for NOT given a clear definition of such, allowing states to throw everything in the pile. Libraries - of course, they are sensitive as you have to be quiet as kids are there. Houses of worship - you offend deities and the deities will send battalions of angels or avatars to defend you (yes, that has happened quite a bit, hasn't it).

They could have said - sensitive locations, public and private are defined as a place where there is a highly technical reason exists for banning the weapon, such as the MRI room, the prison, or the like. Business locales - the right of SD trumps the property right of a business that opens itself to the public. Businesses accept all kinds of restrictions - protected classes, zoning, fire, health standards, etc. It's not that a business is a 'castle' uncontrolled by regulations. I opine that they don't want to restrict owners' ban rights as Clarence is more interested in allowing sexually oriented bans and for that won't restrict MUH PROPERTY RIGHTZ. Take that opinion or leave it, that's what I think is going on there.

Clarence and company also did not think through the counter attack to Bruen. Folks praise his genius on the Manhattan statement but it's clear that the antigunner had prepared for that with the opt in rules in NYS and proposed across other states. So you can't ban Manhattan, you just ban all business sites making practical carry useless. Did he think of that? I know folks in NYS warned the Bruen proponents that such would happen but it was ignored such that now you can get a useless permit without a reason. It's good that more folks can get handguns but you can't carry them. Is that a win or loss for most of the state? It will take years to undo and will Scotus actually be unambiguous this time?

I also note that the so called gun friendly folks in Congress, never seem to pass pro gun things when they have the Congress and Presidency. What happened to HPAA or reciprocity? They may face a filibuster but they could vote to show the flag. They certainly did that a zillion times on Obama care. The Democrats got their act together on marriage equality the other day with some GOP help. Mitch never let the SAGA act see the light of day. Why to keep the issue hot for cash flow? Have the laws and decisions I mentioned and the issue isn't a vote or fund getter! The NRA (now neutered due to Wayne) would be down to the bullseye and duck guys.

Bah.

 

[Will Munny]

The reality is, those that are after our firearms do not care what Bruen says. Unless there are repercussions for violating something like Bruen, this will continue indefinitely.

This. As long as these scumbags are running the Federal government court rullings are meaningless.

 

[GEM]

My point is that Bruen was NOT clear except in the mind of the committed. Scotus could have done better and tightened up rather than a new rule. Note, this view is not mine alone. I've seen it in quite a few scholarly commentaries.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...The fault basically is Scotus not understanding or chosing not to understand or act in a strongly positive manner for the 2nd Amend. They prefer to be ambiguous, perhaps to show off their legal acumen or some political reason (a clear decision to remove gun restrictions removes the issue as a campaign issue for conservatives to fund raise)...

Which helps illustrate why almost fifty years ago my Constitutional Law professor kept telling the class that, "Courts are a lousy place to make law." And that's not going to change because it's inherent in the nature of the judicial process.

It's not the role of courts to make public policy. It's the role of courts to decide "cases and controversies", i. e., the respective rights and duties of the parties involved in a particular incident, chain of events, or situation which is the subject of the litigation.

The processes and procedures best suited to courts thus performing their judicial function and exercising their judicial power aren't well suited to making public policy. Courts "make law" as a side effect of courts exercising their judicial function because, in our Common Law based system, rulings on questions of law necessarily made in order to decide the "case or controversy" would be binding or persuasive precedent used by other courts to decide similar questions.

But at times one group or another is frustrated with the ways in which legislatures are addressing subjects that concern the group, and so will resort to litigation to try to ameliorate legislative intransigence. We've seen this with First Amendment issues and in the Civil Rights movement. And we've been doing this in the RKBA arena. But because of the nature of the judicial process that is, at best, a very imperfect strategy.

 

[Plastikosmd]

Working on making my magazines compliant. Well until the cat fell asleep on my rivet selection.

I guess we know his opinion

 

[Aim1]

My point is that Bruen was NOT clear except in the mind of the committed. Scotus could have done better and tightened up rather than a new rule. Note, this view is not mine alone. I've seen it in quite a few scholarly commentaries.

How would you have written it to make it clearer?

 

[Basura Blanca]

This is the new norm whether we like it or not.
Just as we aren't willing to give up quietly after a single setback, the other side isn't either. They didn't come all this way to kill the 2A only to quit after one unfavorable (and purposely ambiguous) supreme court decision.

 

[TTv2]

Sadly, this ruling shows that judges lawmakers and judges don’t get two imported things. Firstly, large capacity magazines do not motivate anyone to be a killer. A killer is not motivated by weapons. In China, England, and other gun restrictive countries the weapon of choice is a knife. Second, even if the shooter is untrained changing a magazine is only going to take a few seconds. How far away can you get in few seconds? Not far enough.

In high school my physics teacher explained that lol things physical are extremely complicated. So, before one drew a conclusion based upon evidence it was critical to examine the validity of the evidence. He went on to say that why experts say is not evidence. Evidence is fact not opinion. So my guess is that the judge had no background in root issue, and the attorney’s on both side just spouted out what they learn in the pro and con gun media.

About six months ago i read a news article about a judge who enjoined a high capacity magazine ban. His reasoning was based upon research into home defense incidents in which multiple invaders entered a home. From that research he concluded and ruled that a high capacity magazine was an asset when it came to self defense. Smart judge. We need smarter judges.

There's another forum I frequent and some of the members there have said that the brief filed by the attorney for the plaintiffs was poorly written. I skimmed the first couple pages, but I'm not well versed in legal briefs and my opinion is that the attorney could have been the best lawyer in the world, the Judge had made up his mind the moment the case was assigned to him and he has no interest in following the new legal guidelines that the Bruen case made. Now it's on to the 1st Circuit to see if they will also ignore Bruen, which given its makeup I assume they will as well.

All the magazine capacity cases are eventually going to wind up being appealed to SCOTUS and likely be heard by 2025. I just wish SCOTUS wouldn't have vacated the NJ case, but they clearly have a disinterest in 2A cases and I don't care what legal scholars think after Bruen, 2A cases have always been disfavored by the court and always will.

Home defense is the main argument I make against magazine capacity laws. Every home invasion I see video of there's always multiple people, usually more than 2. Not everyone can handle the recoil of a 9mm or .380, thus they choose a smaller caliber which isn't as effective and requires multiple shots to stop threats. Limiting somebody with a .22 or a .32 to just 10 rds is putting them at a disadvantage because in the videos and articles I read of home defense gun uses, nobody has a spare magazine with them, meaning all the rounds they have are what is in the gun.

 

[TTv2]

Which helps illustrate why almost fifty years ago my Constitutional Law professor kept telling the class that, "Courts are a lousy place to make law." And that's not going to change because it's inherent in the nature of the judicial process.

It's not the role of courts to make public policy. It's the role of courts to decide "cases and controversies", i. e., the respective rights and duties of the parties involved in a particular incident, chain of events, or situation which is the subject of the litigation.

The processes and procedures best suited to courts thus performing their judicial function and exercising their judicial power aren't well suited to making public policy. Courts "make law" as a side effect of courts exercising their judicial function because, in our Common Law based system, rulings on questions of law necessarily made in order to decide the "case or controversy" would be binding or persuasive precedent used by other courts to decide similar questions.

But at times one group or another is frustrated with the ways in which legislatures are addressing subjects that concern the group, and so will resort to litigation to try to ameliorate legislative intransigence. We've seen this with First Amendment issues and in the Civil Rights movement. And we've been doing this in the RKBA arena. But because of the nature of the judicial process that is, at best, a very imperfect strategy.

What do you suggest then? People to disobey the "law" that violates the Constitution? The 2A side can't do that because it ends violently, plain and simple.

The reality is that there's a side that doesn't give a crap about the Constitution or the law, they use it to get what they want and have no limits to means they'll use to achieve that end. The entire point of the existence of the United States is it is a place where any majority cannot infringe upon the rights of the minority, yet certain states are doing just that regarding the RKBA. The answer of moving to a state that doesn't is easier said than done and it shouldn't be required when the 14th Amendment says every person has equal protection.

The judicial branch of gov't has been failing the people just as badly as the other two branches have for decades and they deserve the same amount of scorn.

 

[GEM]

I gave what I thought they should have said early in the thread. Basically, clearly state that AWBs and mag bans are unconsitutional for semi auto weapons. That's it. Clearly stated.

Second - SD rights trump property rights and sensitive locales unless there is a technical reason such as the MRI room, medical exams where you lose control of the gun or court room, prisons, perhaps airplanes.

Frank is so correct on using the courts to substitute for legislation. I've read that in reviews. However, there are two among many problems. First, despite what the legal professions might say, when it comes to contentious social issues, judges and justices decide along their politics and then look for precedents. That's been pretty well documented most of the time, the few different cases are few. Currently, the justices are chosen for their pre-existing known beliefs on social issues. That's why the historical rule was again a mistake. Doubt Clarence thought of it. Some clerk was being clever. The others justices said why not, that sounds like it will make us look clever and wise.

Second, the pro gun legislature at the Federal level is a myth. The GOP (sorry to be political) does not take strong steps for pro gun legislation. The examples are out there easy to see. Why? Cowardice? Not really support gun rights? Worry the peasants will storm the houses of the rich? Wanting to keep the issue hot for elections and fund raising? All of these - sure. Recall, where the latest serious actual banning of a gun thing came from - Orange Alert. You can get what you want Nancy! I'm not afraid of the NRA.

Actually the latter has some truth as they have been much weakened by Wayne and now lacking an effective public spokesperson, plus their leeching themselves on to Team Orange, ignoring the growing gun population of diverse views.

I don't see decisive Scotus or legislative action for quite a bit. I agree that Scotus says - we did Bruen, we will go back into our cave as we did after Heller and McDonald.