Hooray and Hallejulah

My observation is that people tend to think a court's decision on issues like this is political when they don't agree with the outcome and legal when they do agree. I don't believe many of the judges on the federal courts of appeals, including the Supreme Court, completely separate out their own political/social/economic views from the law. However, I agree that coming from the 9th Circuit this is a somewhat remarkable outcome.
 
mightymoose said:
It is destined for the Supremes.
Click to expand...

Three points on this.

First, there is no guarantee that the Supreme Court would agree to review this issue. It might, given that there is now a split on the matter (see below) but it doesn't have to.

Second, the opinion that Jack linked would not be the decision that the Supreme Court would review. If you read the opinion carefully you will find that the court did not hold that NJ statute was constitutional. Rather, another panel of the Third Circuit had previously decided that issue. As a result, the court in the opinion Jack linked is merely saying that it is bound by the previous panel's decision. That decision not controversial and the Supreme Court is not going to review it.

Third, as the court points out, five other circuits have also reached the same conclusion that laws outlawing large capacity magazines (LCMs) are constitutional. The Supreme Court has not taken up any of those cases. That suggests that the court is at least waiting for a split in the circuits. Oddly, that split is occurring as a result of a Ninth Circuit decision that says California's LCM ban is unconstitutional. That all the more conservative circuits that have heard this issue to date have upheld the bans and the most liberal circuit is the one striking it down is rather unusual. It also does not bode particularly well for those who want to see LCM restrictions shot down.
 

Share this page

Get a free case review from a lawyer
Back
Top