I am of the opinion that ANY law that reduces, restricts or otherwise infringes on liberty, but especially any of the Bill of Rights "rights" - should require strict scrutiny.
Might be too soon. I don’t know if SCOTUS can be trusted. Specifically, I don’t know if ROBERTS can be trusted.
We need to replace one more liberal. Then we are in position to put the hammer down hard on magazine bans.
With little training a person can swap a magazine in under 10 second and with some practice it can be knocked down to under 5 seconds. Imagine the carnage one could do with a couple dozen stripper clips and a M1
I wonder what the black market price of 40rd. mags will go for?
Two Obamaites and a Constitutionalist appointed by President Trump.
Anyone care to guess which ones were which?
Joseph Greenaway Jr: a Rapin Bill/ClownBammy judge ruling against gun rights
Patty Shwartz: A ClownBammy judge ruling against gun rights
Stephanos Bibas: A President Trump judge ruling for gun rights
TOTALLY unexpected. 
It's almost like two Fascist authoritarian DemoKKKrat "judges" voted against a Republican judge, but of course, that's IMPOSSIBLE, according to John "They're Blackmailing Me!" Roberts...
If that's true then why not make the limit one round instead of ten?
Looks like they are forcing folks to go to 1911 45ACP pistols whose mags only hold 7 rounds. It seems to me that one hit from a 45ACP slug is about 3 times more damaging than a 9mm and maybe twice as damaging than a 40 S&W.
NJ, Ny and CT....have similar restrictions. In New York you can buy and legally posses a 10 round magazine BUT it’s illegal to load that magazine with more than 7 rounds -ridiculous!
“There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.” -Ayn Rand
I guess all this screaming and yelling has to do with letting the shooter have ‘unlimited’ access to cartridges.
Here’s a video about mag changes. I sure mags could be limited to just 10 rounds and the shooter could shoot for a long time with just a fews mags.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=changing+mags+video&ia=videos&iax=videos&iai=O0idQtEss0U
I have seen a video, can’t find it now, where a shooter changes semi-auto pistol mags in less than 2 seconds.
I’m not saying I’m for limiting mag rounds. I’m saying, with some mag changing practice it doesn’t matter.
Does not limit the 2nd amendment. Interesting.
Because the 2nd Amendment says that the Congress has to GIVE us guns, equipment and training in order for us to be the militia that it can call up to fight.
One question for the lawmakers who support magazine limits. Do these limits apply to all law enforcement agencies operating in the state, and the security forces protecting you and yours? Because if law enforcement needs more, and or your guards need more, well... Anyway, around here I can buy standard 30 round magazines for my AR, pinned down to our current ridiculous 15 round limit. Now, the pin is one aluminum pop rivet, easily drilled out...
He's right, what are the other two afraid of?
Yet the majority treats the Second Amendment differently in two ways. First, it weighs the merits of the case to pick a tier of scrutiny. That puts the cart before the horse. For all other rights, we pick a tier of scrutiny based only on whether the law impairs the core right. The Second Amendment’s core is the right to keep weapons for defending oneself and one’s family in one’s home. The majority agrees that this is the core. So whenever a law impairs that core right, we should apply strict scrutiny, period. That is the case here. Second, though the majority purports to use intermediate scrutiny, it actually recreates the rational-basis test forbidden by Heller. It suggests that this record favors the government, but make no mistake—that is not what the District Court found. The majority repeatedly relies on evidence that the District Court did not rely on and expert testimony that the District Court said was “of little help.” 2018 WL 4688345, at *8. It effectively flips the burden of proof onto the challengers, treating both contested evidence and the lack of evidence as conclusively favoring the government. Whether strict or intermediate scrutiny applies, we should require real evidence that the law furthers the government’s aim and is tailored to that aim. But at key points, the majority substitutes anecdotes and armchair reasoning for the concrete proof that we demand for heightened scrutiny anywhere else. New Jersey has introduced no expert study of how similar magazine restrictions have worked elsewhere. Nor did the District Court identify any other evidence, as opposed to armchair reasoning, that illuminated how this law will reduce the harm from mass shootings. Id. at *12-13. So New Jersey cannot win unless the burden of proof lies with the challengers. It does not. The Second Amendment is an equal part of the Bill of Rights. We must treat the right to keep and bear arms like other enumerated rights, as the Supreme Court insisted in Heller. We may not water it down and balance it away based on our own sense of wise policy. 554 U.S. at 634-35.
The dissent is 19 pages in total.
You can read the entire opinion here.
I can't buy a 22 oz soda here??
Ok then; give me two 16s; please.