New Jersey has banned the possession of magazines that hold more than ten rounds.
The questions presented in the cert petition are:
1. Whether a blanket, retrospective, and confiscatory law prohibiting ordinary law-abiding citizens from possessing magazines in common use violates the Second Amendment.
2. Whether a law dispossessing citizens without compensation of property that was lawfully acquired and long possessed without incident violates the Takings Clause.
In any other year, this cert petition would have been Dead On Arrival.
The cert petition was filed on April 26th. The respondents filed a waiver to respond on May 28th.
On June 8th the petition was DISTRIBUTED for the Conference of June 24th. Had it gone into the June 24th conference without any justice asking for a response then the petition would have been dead on arrival and would never have survived its first conference.
But on June 11th, some unknown justice asked New Jersey to respond. That request for a response guaranteed that the petition would survive its first conference, and it did.
On August 11th, New Jersey filed its Brief In Opposition.
New Jersey’s Brief in Opposition presented the following counter-statement of the questions presented to the justices for them to decide.
COUNTERSTATEMENT OF QUESTION PRESENTED
1. Whether New Jersey’s limit on the maximum capacity of an individual magazine is consistent with the Second Amendment.
2. Whether New Jersey’s limit on the maximum capacity of an individual magazine is consistent with the Fifth Amendment.
New Jersey’s Brief In Opposition argues that there are no circuit splits. New Jersey should have left it at that. Instead, New Jersey additionally argues that the New Jersey ban is consistent with the Heller opinion.
Keep in mind that, although it is rare, SCOTUS does grant cert petitions where there is no circuit split. Recently SCOTUS not only granted a cert petition in which there was no circuit split, the justices granted and heard oral argument in a case in which not only was there not a circuit split, but all of the Federal circuits were in agreement.
The justices reversed all of the Federal circuit courts of appeals.
I won’t comment on the Takings Clause or the Fifth Amendment counterstatement.
My study of Federal Constitutional law these past ten years has been limited to the Constitutional claims made in my California Open Carry lawsuit which are the Second, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Unlike most people, I don’t make purportedly informed opinions on things that I am not informed about. I leave that to the great unwashed, the politicians, the lawyers, the judges. and of course, the pointy-headed morons who infest gun forums.
This isn’t to say that I did not undertake an in-depth study of Federal procedural laws also known as “judge-made laws” and the Federal Rules of Civil and Appellate procedure relevant to my lawsuit.
If I hadn’t then my California Open Carry lawsuit would not have survived as long as it has.
Did I mention that I filed my California Open Carry lawsuit on November 30th, 2011, and as of the date of this video, I am still waiting for a final decision by the 9th circuit court of appeals?
People, and not quite people such as lawyers, do not survive very long in court if they are unaware of where the procedural law land mines are buried.
That’s all for this article.
Until next time, thank you for reading, and please sign up for my newsletter at CaliforniaOpenCarry.com, and please subscribe to my video channel at:
