[frog in a pot]

They said that a magazine-capacity limit does not present a burden to self-defense.
Only lawyers-turned-judges with very limited real-world experience could make such a ill-informed statement and impose their view on the subjects of NJ.

…they must…destroy…any magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds.
How illogical and dishonest, such destruction is indeed a “surrender”.

…retired law enforcement officers have training and experience that makes them different from ordinary citizens…
Such a classification fails because it is based on a false assumption. Even if true, however, it improperly supposes the subjects of NJ (“ordinary citizens”) either do not have such qualifications or are incapable of acquiring such qualifications.

Coming to a neighborhood near you?

[Sacajaweau]

iirc, ny came up with max 7. The court said they must have pulled that number out of their ....

[GreyHoundSailor]

It appears as though most states doing this type of thing carve out exceptions for ‘retire LE’ and ‘active duty military’.

Many retired military have more experience, not only with a variety of platforms, but with ROE and use of deadly force.

One can only assume the politicians perceive us to be potential irritants in the future, as they work to disarm us. They’re right.