Ruling comes as supreme court is set to consider whether bans on semiautomatic rifles violate US constitution

Friday’s appeals court ruling in the New Jersey case goes further than a July 2024 ruling from a federal judge, who said that the state’s ban on AR-15s specifically was unconstitutional but upheld the provision barring larger magazines.

The third US circuit court of appeals said on Friday in its opinion that the state’s ban on all semiautomatic rifles it deems to be “assault firearms” and its restriction on “large capacity ammunition magazines” were unconstitutional.

New Jersey’s attorney general, Jennifer Davenport, a Democrat whose office defended the law, told the Associated Press that the decision is “as unfortunate as it is legally incorrect”.

“Gotta maximize the body count of school children”

-These judges, probably

  • Sprocketfree@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    117·
    2 days ago

    But once again I feel like all of those restrictions are going to just get tossed on 2a grounds. I guess I just fail to see people that are responsible owners fighting to keep it responsible. If the 2a crowd can’t figure this out then I’m in the ban them all camp.

    • BranBucket@lemmy.world
      7·
      2 days ago

      Honestly, I respect that stance more than I respect the folks with a dozen half-assed definitions and assorted conditions on what people should or should not own.

      I disagree with it, but I respect it.

    • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.mlEnglish
      211·
      2 days ago

      I’m in the ban them all camp

      The truth comes out. Isnt it easy to be honest with your intentions?

      • Sprocketfree@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        121·
        2 days ago

        Sorry you couldn’t pick that up. But yea, if we can’t figure out a way to let you keep your gun while minimizing mass shootings then yea, we should ban them all.

        • PowerCrazy@lemmy.mlEnglish
          36·
          2 days ago

          That’s kind of weird don’t you think? Mass Shootings are already a rare thing, so how much minimization would you want before you are willing to “let” people have their constitutional rights. Would you apply this logic to other things that are not constitutionally protected? For example how many deaths are acceptable before you decide not to “let” people live in car dependent hell-scapes?