Wonder if we'll see one of these ("Large Capacity Magazine" (LCM) ban) proposed next month. Wouldn't be surprised.

Link to decision: https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/183170p.pdf

From Dr. AWR Hawkins:

Federal Appeals Court Upholds New Jersey ‘High Capacity’ Magazine Ban

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/12/06/federal-appeals-court-upholds-new-jersey-high-capacity-magazine-ban/

A three-judge panel from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled Wednesday that New Jersey’s ban on “high capacity” magazines “does not unconstitutionally burden the Second Amendment’s right to self-defense in the home.”
The two to one ruling allows the ban to stand.

For example, the majority wrote:

Plaintiffs attempt to discount the need for the LCM ban by describing mass shootings as rare incidents, and asserting that the [“high capacity” magazine] ban burdens the rights of law-abiding gun owners to address an infrequent occurrence. The evidence adduced before the District Court shows that this statement downplays the significant increase in the frequency and lethality of these incidents.

They then reference Giffords’ group’s Amicus Brief in rejecting Plaintiff’s claims:

Despite Plaintiffs’ assertion to the contrary, New Jersey has not been spared from a mass shooting. Just days after the Act was passed, a mass shooter injured twenty-two individuals and killed one at an arts festival in Trenton. …Even if this event had not occurred, “New Jersey need not wait for its own high-fatality gun massacre before curtailing access to LCMs.” Giffords Law Ctr. Amicus Br.

The panel also rejected the plaintiff’s appeal to the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause by noting, “the compliance measures in the [“high capacity” magazine ban] do not result in either an actual or regulatory taking.”

Judge Stephanos Bibas, a Trump appointee, dissented from the majority, arguing that the ruling treats the Second Amendment as protecting second-class rights, unequal with other rights. He wrote, “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.”

“does not unconstitutionally burden the Second Amendment’s right to self-defense in the home.”<P>

Note well the "self defense in the home".  This seems to be a new liberal talking point: No right to self defense outside the home. 

Had a go around with a rabid anti gun type a while ago on the WHT site and he kept insisting on no right to self defense with a firearm because it was not so stated in the text of the 2A.

This may be a new attack angle they are trying out.

“does not unconstitutionally burden the Second Amendment’s right to self-defense in the home.”<P>

Note well the "self defense in the home".  This seems to be a new liberal talking point: No right to self defense outside the home. 

Had a go around with a rabid anti gun type a while ago on the WHT site and he kept insisting on no right to self defense with a firearm because it was not so stated in the text of the 2A.

This may be a new attack angle they are trying out.

1.The "in the home" language is because Heller, and consequently McDonald, were the precedent cases ruling that keeping arms was an "individual right" of all law-abiding citizens/residents, not merely a "collective right" held by the official members of something designated as the "well-regulated militia". Heller challenged the D.C. ban on possession of a handgun, including one in working condition (loaded and available) in the home (the successful challenges to D.C.'s draconian Hawaii-like bear-outside-the-home de facto no issue policies would come later). The language specifically comes from the quote from Heller as presented in the above Third Circuit ruling: " [The] Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to possess firearms and recognized that the “core” of the Second Amendment is to allow “law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.”" Of course it used that language because the law being contested was one that banned possession in the home. DUH. And this: "[T]he home is the quintessential place protected by the Second Amendment. In the home, “the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute.” McDonald, 561 U.S. at 767 (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 628)." The obvious corollary to be drawn from that language is that "the need for defense of self, family, and property is ALSO acute outside the home, but perhaps less so". Here I vehemently disagree with Scalia's reasoning, but understand it may have been part of the strategic "game" in order to get that fifth vote (as former justice Stevens recently claimed happened with him convincing Kennedy to require the "longstanding provisions are presumptively lawful" pile of crap language).

The civilian disarmament  rights deniers argue that because a case about keeping arms in the home ruled that there is an individual right to keep and bear arms inside the home, that means that there is no right to bear arms outside the home. That's "logic" to them. Any questions as to what we're up against?

2. The Third Circuit ruling also lists the states that have "LCM" (large capacity magazine) bans besides the law being contested in New Jersey (footnote 1, page 6, continued on page 7). You'll be "interested" to find out that Hawaii bans ALL magazines of greater than 10 rounds. The opinion cites§134-8  (c) ["Haw. Rev. Stat. § 134-8(c) (ten rounds)"], which I reproduce here (emphasis added) for your enjoyment:

§134-8  (c)  The manufacture, possession, sale, barter, trade, gift, transfer, or acquisition of detachable ammunition magazines with a capacity in excess of ten rounds which are designed for or capable of use with a pistol is prohibited.

Well, you're thinking, maybe they just left out the notation that it only applies to pistols. No. They got it wrong. Further down the list of states with ban on LCMs they write: "13 Vt. Stat. Ann. 4021(e)(1)(A), (B) (ten rounds for a “long gun” and fifteen rounds for a “hand gun”);" So at least when they read the statute properly they can discern when there is a distinction between the law limiting the legal capacity of long gun and handgun magazines. They just can't read the Hawaii law correctly, which is so plain and simple that I'd venture that just about anyone with a fourth grade (first grade?) reading comprehension level could get right. But the Third Circuit Court of Appeals? Not so much. The reasoning of the panel majority for the whole case parallels their reading comprehension skills.

3. Note that the two Obama appointees ruled that the ban is perfectly legal, not an infringement, as well as that retired cops are not receiving any special treatment by being exempt from the ban... perfectly reasonable and constitutional, because, you know, "cops". The dissent was written by a Trump appointee. This is what SCOTUS Chief Justice Roberts would call "a pure coincidence" (“We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges.") I have to wonder how Roberts would explain that any bookmaker would have given odds near 100% that the votes would have gone that way? Occasionally on Second Amendment issues a Republican president appointee will go against the 2A rights (including the dissenter in Young), but (almost) NEVER does a Democrat president appointee side with the right.