Jackson v. Bamberg

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that intermediate scrutiny applied, in part because the challenged law “has no impact on the many other firearm options that individuals have to defend themselves in their home”
• explaining that the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has \consulted First Amendment jurisprudence\ but has \not wholesale incorporated it into the Second Amendment\
• applying intermediate scrutiny because an LCM ban “does not severely burden, and in fact respects, the core of the Second Amendment right.”
• rejecting a similar takings challenge to a ban on large-capacity magazines because the owners can, among other things, sell or transfer the magazines or modify them to accept fewer rounds
• rejecting a similar takings challenge to a ban on large-capacity magazines because the owners can, among other things, sell or transfer the magazines or modify them to accept fewer rounds
• asking only for “a reasonable fit between that asserted interest and the challenged law”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).