PROVIDENCE, Rho -(Ammoland.com)- A Rhode Island Federal District Judge has shown disdain for the Bruen decision while denying a preliminary injunction to Ocean State Tactical over the State’s “Large Capacity Feeding Devices” ban.
Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. issued the decision today in the Federal District Court of Rhode Island. Ocean State Tactical, LLC, and four Rhode Island citizens sued the state over its magazine ban that prohibited magazines holding more than ten rounds. The legislation was passed on June 21, 2022. It had a built-in grace period of 180 days for owners to either permanently modify their magazines so they could not hold more than ten rounds, sell the item to an out-of-state federally registered firearms dealer, or turn them in to the police. If gun owners refused, then the state would consider them felons.
The plaintiffs sued the state claiming violations of several amendments. The first charge was that the state violated the citizens’ Second Amendment rights. The Obama appointee ruled that magazines were not “arms,” so the Second Amendment does not protect them. His distinction flies in the face of long-accepted definitions and multiple other legal cases. Without a magazine, a firearm cannot function. Therefore, if a magazine is not considered an “arm,” all magazine-fed guns could be rendered inoperable.
The plaintiffs also sued the state for violating the “takings” clause of the Fifth Amendment. His allegation stems from the police demanding that gun owners turn in their magazines for no compensation. According to the Constitution, just compensation must be paid to the gun owner. The judge ignored the statute laid out in the country’s founding document.
The group also stated that their Fourteenth Amendment rights were being violated. They claimed that Rhode Island was violating their right to due process. They claimed deprivation of rights under the color of state law. They asked the judge to issue a preliminary injunction against the new law.
The Democrat judge ruled against the plaintiffs, stating that they lacked “a likelihood of success on the merits, that they will not suffer irreparable harm if the law is allowed to take effect, and that the public interest is served by denying injunctive relief.”
The judge stated that even if magazines were arms, the plaintiffs didn’t convince him that magazines were related to “self-defense”; therefore, there could not be a Second Amendment violation, which the judge claims are the purpose of the Second Amendment.
The judge also stated that the Fifth Amendment was not violated. He claimed that taking the magazines without compensation was within the power of the police. He is referring to the claim that the law will “lower the risk of harm that results from the availability of devices that assist someone intent on murdering large numbers of people.” He calls the law “common-sense public safety legislation,” which is the buzzword of the anti-gun left.
Since the judge ruled that magazines were not “arms,” the judge weighed “public interest” in his decision. He claims that there is an “epidemic of violence in American society there has been layered the ultra-lethal pathogen of mass murders-shootings in which multiple people are killed and, often, dozens of others injured.” He claims that banning magazines it will somehow make mass shootings less deadly.
“While a ban on LCMs does not prevent mass shootings, it unquestionably makes them less deadly.”
The judge later doubles down by writing, “Suffice it to say that in very real terms, the plaintiffs’ proffered harm caused to them by an injunction pales in comparison to the unspeakable devastation caused by mass shooters wildly spraying bullets without end into a crowd of bystanders.”
The judge also claims that the law puts little burden on the plaintiffs because it does not diminish the shooting ability of the gun owner. He reasons that they could acquire multiple ten-round magazines. He also claims there is no evidence that anyone ever needed more than ten rounds in self-defense.
The judge stated: “The law puts no limit on the number of ten round magazines an owner may have at her feet at any one time. The ground can be littered with magazines that, in the aggregate, give the recreational shooter dozens, or even hundreds, of bullets to fire. It is worth noting again that there is no evidence that any person has ever had any need to fire more than ten rounds in self-defense.”
Most shockingly, the judge stated that licensing schemes like the one that has been put on hold in Oregon are Constitutional. Most legal scholars disagree. The judge also dismissed all the plaintiff’s expert witnesses yet, found the State’s expert witnesses credible.
It seems like the judge had his mind made up before even hearing the case.
About John Crump
John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.
from https://ift.tt/Ef4LcwA
via IFTTT
No comments:
Post a Comment