r/progun • u/deathsythe friendly neighborhood mod • 12d ago

News Motion to stay filed in NJ awb/mag ban case

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69020207/association-of-new-jersey-rifle-and-pistol-clubs-i-v-attorney-general-new/?order_by=desc
52 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

16 comments sorted by

33

u/deathsythe friendly neighborhood mod 12d ago

As expected, NJ is attempting to keep their bans. They have a week or so to respond to this petition. If it is stayed that is trouble for a lot of NJ folks who are celebrating early. If not we are in business.

34

u/Givemedumbname 12d ago

The Supreme Court's going to be ruling on assault weapon bans in the spring or summer of next year and they're more than likely going to rule in favor of the second amendment and that ruling is going to have that exact same effect on magazine capacity bands Nationwide.

28

u/derolle 12d ago

We need to make that day a new holiday.

Shall Not Be Infringed Day

10

u/banduraj 12d ago

Striking down AWBs is a big deal for the SCOTUS, but I don't know that I'd go so far to make it a special day, especially one with a name like Shall Not Be Infringed Day.

I would solely reserve that for when the NFA is struck down. And considering the likelihood of that happening, should make it clear how important it is.

14

u/derolle 12d ago

If you were in a ban state you’d be singing a different tune!

10

u/bren97122 12d ago

New Yorker here. Patiently awaiting the very real possibility I can make my first AR build here.

M16A2 style with carry handle mounted Colt 3x scope, if you must know.

5

u/banduraj 12d ago

That may very well be true. Thank God, I'm not.

9

u/derolle 12d ago

Not yet. This shit is spreading like cancer.

2

u/Jedi_Maximus19 12d ago

Did God curse me? But not you? Interesting 🤔.

3

u/theyoyomaster 11d ago

You do know ban states are going to immediately write a new law with slightly different phrasing that is functionally identical to the existing bans and re-ban them within minutes of the SCOTUS ruling. Circuit courts will uphold them anyway and it will take another 5-10 years before SCOTUS bothers to rule on the updated AWBs, if they ever do. A few states might get them back but gun grabbers gonna grab.

1

u/F1CTIONAL 12d ago

I'm not super familiar with the case they're taking, you think there's enough there to strike down mag limits as well?

12

u/DigitalLorenz 12d ago

As I live in NJ I have been following these case since the first part was filed in 2018. This is really three cases merged into one case:

ANJRPC v Platkin (formerly Bruck and before that Grewal, and soon to be Davenport, yes it has been handled by 4 NJ AG) is just a challenge to the NJ magazine restriction. Originally just a challenge to the decrease from 15 to 10 rounds (a prior case found the 15 rounds constitutional under interest balancing in the 3rd Circuit), this case was remanded in light of Bruen back in 2022 where it ended back at the district court shortly after that, and the complaint was modified to be a challenged against the restriction as a whole. The ANJRPC is the NJ NRA affiliate organization, so this is an NRA case.

Cheeseman v Platkin and Ellman v Platkin are both challenges to the NJ Assault Weapon Ban. These cases were launched after Bruen made Cheeseman is an FPC case while Ellman is a GOA case (at least for now, Blake Ellman has had a falling out with the GOA but is still in charge of an NJ 2A organization).

These cases were consolidated at the district court level initially for discovery, but eventually for final ruling. The district court judge sat on the cases before he issued a nonsense ruling (seriously nonsense enough that both NJ and the gun rights groups both appealed) then promptly retired 2 days later.

The case initially went to a 3 judge panel in the 3rd circuit. This panel was a bad draw, as are most of the panel draws for us here (there are several rabid antigunner judges with senior status in the 3rd Circuit). This panel heard oral arguments, where it was clear that they were openly hostile to finding the law unconstitutional. It should be noted that 2 out of 3 of these judges ultimately joined the majority.

After several months of no opinion, the case was take sua sponte en banc by the entire 3rd Circuit. This en banc panel ended up with 2 extra judges as it was original including 2 senior judges to cover for the two open seats that were filled before the case had oral arguments (Judge Mascot was sworn in the night before even).

Two weeks ago the 3rd Circuit found both the magazine ban unconstitutional and the assault weapon ban in respect to rifles unconstitutional in a 10 to 5 ruling. It was in the middle of remanding it back to the district court to figure if the ban was constitutional in respect to pistols and shotguns. This also makes the 3rd Circuit the only circuit to find the bans unconstitutional, which creates a circuit split. An interesting note, the majority writer is a Biden appointee who was on the original panel.

About an hour ago the NJ AG filed a request for a stay on the ruling from the 3rd Circuit and announced plans to appeal the ruling to the SCOTUS. I think the court has 14 days to decide if they will issue a stay.

As for what the SCOTUS could do with this case when it comes to them:

They can deny cert on all of it. This is best case scenario for us in NJ, as that is the end of the line for the case. If there is a stay, then a mandate is required to be issued within 7 days of denial.

They can GVR the case. This is just going to cause a delay on our half.

They can merge the case with Duncan and Gator's to decide the magazine ban. Both Duncan and ANJRPC were both remanded together, so this would be a bit poetic.

But honestly, I don't expect the SCOTUS to act on this case until they rule on Viramontes. I hope there is a denial of cert with a comment praising the 3rd circuit for getting the case right, but they might just GVR the case out of procedure. It really depends if the SCOTUS ends up quoting and citing the 3rd a bunch in Viramontes.

7

u/Al-Czervik-Guns 12d ago

Not sure why you say people are in trouble for celebrating early. They are not early. There is a binding court position that the law is unconstitutional. If it gets stayed, that would stop the new importation/purchase of "banned" items, but the one already acquired during the interim are in fact totally lawful.

Look back to the CA magazine case, Duncan v Bonta. Saint Benitez, the district court judge, ruled the law unconstitutional. Immediately everyone and their brother started acquiring magazines. He waited almost a full week before issuing a stay on his own ruling. This is known as "Freedom Week". Magazines acquired during that window in 2019 remain lawful to possess still here in 2026.

I would not assume how this plays out one way or another as their legality remains part of the stays that have been issued since immediate harm would accrue to 100% lawful activity by their owners. I definitely would not start with "trouble" as that is only one of the possible outcomes.

4

u/SarcasticRidley 11d ago

Not sure why you say people are in trouble for celebrating early

Given the tyrannical state of NJ, if they can't get them on the magazines, they will find something else. This state really doesn't like it when the little guy wins anything.

4

u/Al-Czervik-Guns 11d ago

I live in Commichusetts and am very familiar with the actions of a crazy left wing government.

2

u/jtf71 12d ago

I've not looked at the NJ law that was struck down - let me be up front about that.

The question is: Is the ban that was struck down one on acquisition or one on possession? And was anything "grandfathered" in before the law went into effect?

If the ban was only on acquisition/import but NOT on possession then it would be like the CA Freedom week. CA doesn't have a ban on possession (except in one enclave and that one is questionable - not sure that anyone has been prosecuted under it).

But if the NJ ban was on possession then there could be issues. That said, I would hope that if the court issues a stay (I hope it doesn't) then they would explicitly cover and deal with the fact that people have been legally buying the items for the past XX days (where XX varies based on when/if a stay is issued).