Quote of the day—CIrcuit Judge Stephanos Bibas

The ban impairs using guns for self-defense. The government’s entire case is that smaller magazines mean more reloading. That may make guns less effective for ill—but so too for good. The government’s own police detective testified that he carries large magazines because they give him a tactical “advantage[],” since users must reload smaller magazines more often. App. 116-18. And he admitted that “law-abiding citizens in a gunfight” would also find them “advantageous.” App. 119. So the ban impairs both criminal uses and self-defense.


The law does not ban all magazines, so it is not per se un-constitutional. But it does impair the core Second Amendment right. We usually would stop there. How much the law impairs the core or how many people use the core right that way does not affect the tier of scrutiny. So like any other law that burdens a constitutional right’s core, this law warrants strict scrutiny.

Stephanos Bibas
Circuit Judge, dissenting.
December 5, 2018
Page 5 of the dissent in Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, Inc.; Blake Ellman; Alexander Dembrowski, Appellants v. Attorney General New Jersey; Superintendent New Jersey State Police.
[See also my “dissent”.—Joe]

2 thoughts on “Quote of the day—CIrcuit Judge Stephanos Bibas

  1. “The law does not ban all magazines, so it is not per se un-constitutional”

    Yes it is. Such interference in the exercise of the 2nd Amendment Right falls under the “shall NOT be infringed” clause. And all you but-monkey black-robed judicial oligarchs just failed English comprehension. ON PURPOSE. REPEATEDLY. MALICIOUSLY.

  2. “The law does not ban all magazines, so it is not per se un-constitutional.”

    I’m going to repeat what Craig said here. Since when did “infringed” become “totally, utterly and completely banned and eliminated”?

    To infringe is to touch upon the outer fringes, or penumbra. From my dictionary;
    “Act so as to limit or undermine (something). Encroach on.”

    Thus any encroachment, or any limitation is per se un-constitutional.

    That concept of restriction on government action is something the Progressive Marxists, anti-Americans and papists hate with a burning passion which they can barely contain.

    Believing that they have a “right” to practice coercive social engineering, a right to rule as the Roman holy emperors of old, they call our constitution a “Charter of Negative Rights”. Everything is upside-down to them.

    Recognizing the rights of the individual is to deny the would-be god kings their beautiful power, prestige, station, title, position and glory. It’s a direct affront to their authority, and thus it fits perfectly the Dark Ages definition of “heresy”.

    The Bill of Rights is particularly heretical, evoking a burning, white-hot hatred in the minds of authoritarians, most especially because it is so specifically directed against them, as if reading and discerning their hearts and minds from centuries past and saying “NO! NOT HERE! NOT THIS TIME!”

    If history is any indication (and it is), they will surely murder, and murder on a grand scale, rather than tolerate it.

Comments are closed.