Judge Won't Halt State's Limits on Large-Capacity Gun Magazines
The judge said the New Jersey law places a minimal burden on lawful gun owners, and imposes no new restrictions on the quantity of firearms, magazines or bullets that they may possess.
October 01, 2018 at 04:35 PM
5 minute read
A federal judge has refused to halt enforcement of New Jersey's ban on large-capacity firearm magazines, prompting the plaintiffs who filed a challenge to the law to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
U.S. District Judge Peter Sheridan of the District of New Jersey ruled on Sept. 28 that the plaintiffs in Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs v. Grewal are unlikely to succeed on the merits of their arguments that limiting magazines to 10 rounds instead of 15 violates their rights under the Second, Fifth and 14th amendments. Lawyers for the plaintiffs appealed Sheridan's ruling that same day.
Sheridan said the New Jersey law places a minimal burden on lawful gun owners. He said it imposes no new restrictions on the quantity of firearms, magazines or bullets they may possess, and merely limits the lawful capacity of a single magazine. Sheridan also said that New Jersey, a densely populated urban state, has a strong interest in regulating firearms, and that deference is warranted in the Legislature's conclusion that a restriction on capacity is necessary for public safety.
The judge cited anecdotal evidence from a June 2018 mass shooting at an arts festival in Trenton that lives are saved when a gunman needs to stop shooting to reload. Sheridan said a similar phenomenon was seen in the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, and at several other shootings.
In the New Jersey case, the state presented testimony from three experts at a series of hearings on the motion in August, and the plaintiffs presented one expert. But Sheridan said the expert testimony was “of little help in its analysis,” citing “questionable data and conflicting studies” that plaintiff's expert Gary Kleck and defense expert Lucy Allen relied on.
Kleck said the New Jersey law was unlikely to have any detectable effect on the number of firearm deaths, but said it would impair a crime victim's ability to defend against an attack. Allen, of NERQA Economic Consulting, said in a declaration that it was rare for an individual to fire more than 10 rounds in self-defense.
But Sheridan said the New Jersey law places a minimal burden on the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, since it does not restrict the quantity of firearms, magazines or bullets an individual may possess. “A gun owner preparing to fire more than ten bullets in self-defense can legally purchase multiple magazines and fill them with ten bullets each. The court therefore finds the new law imposes no significant burden, if any, on plaintiff's Second Amendment right,” Sheridan said.
The suit was filed in June by the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, along with two members of the group, Blake Ellman and Alexander Dembowski. The group's website says it's a state affiliate of the National Rifle Association. The association has filed other suits challenging New Jersey firearm regulations, including one to overturn the law imposing limits on who may carry firearms in public.
Large-capacity magazines were prohibited under federal law when Congress adopted a ban on assault weapons in 1994, but that ban expired under a sunset provision in 2004 that was not renewed by lawmakers, Sheridan noted in his ruling. When New Jersey adopted the law on large-capacity magazines in June, the state joined California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts and New York as well as many cities and counties in limiting the possession and sale of magazines to 10 rounds.
A prohibition on large-capacity magazines by New York state was upheld by the Second Circuit in 2015. But in the same ruling, the appeals court upheld a lower-court ruling that struck down a law making it illegal for individuals to load more than seven rounds of ammunition in a magazine capable of holding 10 rounds.
Also in 2015, the Ninth Circuit upheld a law passed by the city of Sunnyvale, California, banning magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of the Ninth Circuit ruling.
The plaintiffs are represented by Cooper & Kirk in Washington, D.C., which has represented the NRA in numerous challenges to firearms regulations around the country. David Thompson, managing partner to Cooper & Kirk, did not return a call about the case. Nor did local counsel Daniel Schmutter of Hartman & Winnicki of Ridgewood.
The Office of the Attorney General, which represents the state, said in a Facebook posting, “On Friday night, a federal court listened to our arguments and agreed that New Jersey's ban on large capacity magazines is constitutional. That's a big win for public safety.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAG Had No Authority to Take Control of Paterson PD, Appellate Division Says
4 minute readPharma Giants File Patent Infringement Suit Against India-Based Drugmaker Over IBS Medication
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Miami Beach Hotel Sues Celebrity Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, Asserts It Won’t Be ‘Extorted'
- 2'Unlawful Release'?: Judge Grants Preliminary Injunction in NASCAR Antitrust Lawsuit
- 3California Supreme Court to Weigh Reach of Peremptory Challenge Law
- 4Court Rules Thumbs-Up Emoji Can Constitute a Contract Agreement
- 5Delaware Supreme Court Adopts Broad Interpretation of Case Law on Anticompetition Provisions
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250