Quote of the Day
We are unpersuaded by the State’s argument that LCMs are not “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment because they are not necessary to operate a firearm. The State reasons that firearms can operate with smaller capacity magazines. But the text of the Second Amendment does not limit “Arms” to the minimum equipment necessary to operate a weapon. And nowhere in Heller or Bruen’s textual analyses did the Supreme Court suggest that the availability of alternative equipment changes the definition of an arm under the Second Amendment.
Arianna Freeman
Judge of the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
July 17, 2026
New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs v. Attorney General New Jersey
It is important to note that the decision was 10-5 and that Freeman, writing for the majority, is Biden appointee. And for people who care about such things, she is a black woman. The racist who would normally call this decision a right wing, white male, ruling will find themselves a bit tongue tied on this occasion.
Please also note that anti-gun politicians attempting to use such weak arguments is very telling. They are reaching the end of the line. As we move forward their babblings will become less coherent and more easily dismissed. Soon their contribution to society will be considered nothing more than a stain on liberty in our history books.
–The racist who would normally call this decision a right wing, white male, ruling will find themselves a bit tongue tied on this occasion.–
Not really; They just label them an “Uncle Tom” and keep on, never pausing to reevaluate their opinions.
Or an “Oreo.” Black on the outside, white on the inside. [shrug]
I will take the W but the enemy never sleeps. They will have to regroup and come up with a different method to disarm honest people. The case at issue here is the product of the regrouping after Bruen.
Yes. Evil never sleeps. At Loyola Marymount University there was a Jesuit in charge of the library. He was noted for never saying a bad thing about anyone. About the Devil, I was told, he once said, “You have to admit he is a very hard worker.”
Good news.
But still, fully one third of this appellate Circuit Court panel is woefully undernourished in historical literacy, grammatical construction and vocabulary in the English language, what the Founders likely intended by “a republican form of government”, and Jefferson’s definition of “rightful liberty” (and one should easily surmise that Jefferson must have better known what he was talking about.) Why is it that whenever these black robed charlatans have a clear choice between relative tyranny and rightful liberty, they seemingly always hold with tyranny? Shameful.
It is no different than when the black codes started falling. The choice should have been even clearer then. But bigots probably will always exist.
Good analogy.
This is good. With any luck, I’ll be able to buy an off-the-shelf belt-fed without any extra paperwork before I die. Maybe something strange like a Lewis-gun-style cooled barrel, high-accuracy build, in 6.5 Grendel.
It’s not that I “need” one, or even “really, really want” one, but it would show a state of legal affairs that is much more properly aligned to constitutionally-protected rights.
“Because I can” is all the reason and explanation necessary in a freedom-based economy.
And nowhere in Heller or Bruen’s textual analyses did the Supreme Court suggest that the availability of alternative equipment changes the definition of an arm under the Second Amendment.
Actually, IIRC, in Heller the Supreme Court expressly rejected the argument that alternatives make bans Constitutionally valid.
Heller challenged, among other things, Washington D.C.’s complete ban on handguns. The District claimed and tried to argue that because rifles and shotguns are technically allowed, the handgun ban should stand. SCOTUS knocked that argument on its @$$, ruling that prohibiting an entire class of arms doesn’t become valid just because other classes are not so burdened.
That goes a bit further than “nowhere … did the Supreme Court suggest”. No, it was suggested, and the Supreme Court slapped it down. There’s a difference.
I’ll take the win — it is a HUGE win — but that phrasing cracks open a door that SCOTUS had already closed and locked.
I did a little research and was very surprised to discover that a Supreme Court ruling declaring AR & LCM bans unconstitutional would not automatically vacate past convictions or free those currently imprisoned for this violation. Seems like more legal action on the victims part would be required.
The Supreme Court ruling would invalidate the bans going forward, but it wouldn’t erase records or release everyone en masse. Individuals must file post-conviction motions, habeas petitions, or seek expungement/relief in the relevant jurisdiction.
Anyone have any more information about this?
I never thought I’d live to see a Northeastern circuit strike down any kind of gun or magazine ban. If we’re are fortunate the Supreme Court will use this decision as a template for their ruling in Viramontes. But I never get my hopes up where SCOTUS is concerned.
There was a ruling a number of decades ago that held a tax on printers’ ink was an infringement on the First Amendment Freedom of the Press and was therefore void.
It seems that the same language and reasoning should render taxes or regulations on Primers, Powder, Bullets or Brass, and magazines, whether Large Capacity or Standard Capacity should be operative.
We will get there. People have been talking about it for a while. There was a lawsuit in WA a few years ago about the Seattle tax on guns, etc. We lost. If we try again this time next year, I will bet we will win.