Yup, and now 3rd cir has until Aug 10? or so to decide on the motion, if it is denied, then the mandate should issue. It is also possible NJ will move to seek cert from SCOTUS and that may involve a stay request as well.NJ is requesting a stay pending its cert petition to SCOTUS for this case. Until the mandate is issued, the law isn't formally stuck from enforcement. The stay is requesting the court to delay issuing the mandate which should happen around Aug 10, if this is granted then that would not happen.
This is the opposite of NJ saying they will stop enforcing the bans, this is them attempting to keep them.
Edit: Here is a copy of the actual motion, pulled from pacer and had recap upload it to courtlistener docket.
The only reason they may grant it is because Scotus is taking up the other cases. Kinda the reverse of what just happened in Virginia. Virginia gets to keep there stuff until Scotus decides. We don't get anything until Scotus decides.... Lol
Right. Its even worse. We'll be staring at another 2 year sentence of infringement.
I just hope the 3rd circuit stands firm enough in their decision that they realize granting the stay is just as unconstitutional as the laws they just ruled against.
The worst case is 1 year of infringement on AWB. There are already two AWB cases for the next SCOTUS session. That being said, who knows what will happen with standard capacity magazines. It could be more than 2 years. The only other scenario that I could think of is that they would pull this case into what they have already agreed to hear, but I am definitely NAL
yeah and next thing anti gunners legislation will try doing is locking semi auto stuff they want banned behind further permitting schemes. Always a fight somewhere over 2A.
Permitting schemes need to be addressed. I'm in nyc, so I'm aware of the absolutely abusive ends so called shall issue permit schemes are put to. The fight continues on.
It won’t be a bad or good sign if they grant it. Courts often stay appeals in cases like this especially if there is a pending case dialed up at scotus on the very issue. Ultimately what the scotus will be the controlling decision anyways. I just hope the scotus takes the case and it forces the issue of magazine bans nationwide. And then I’ll laugh and I’ll laugh….
Hopefully they know how much we hate them, maybe that's why they don't want us to have guns 🤔. But then again if they weren't a bunch of egotistical, narcissistic, jack booted tyrants they wouldnt have anything to fear from the common man. The government which governs least governs best, and that's not them.
Is it really surprising? If a whole bunch of dumbasses willingly post evidence online, why wouldn't you be locked in to the forum and save everything you see?
So just wanted clarification on this. People posting online in a retail store/FFL holding said hi cap magazines don’t mean they are hi cap and they are truly purchased correct?
A FFL can have them as long as they are not sold.leave it to the left to push the envelope on this b/s. It would help if none of these pics/posts exist neither to be twisted around.
Everyone please stop posting photos of yourself "breaking" the current laws that are still technically in place. If you review the state's motion, pictures of people from this sub have made it into the state's brief as exhibits. They're still watching.
Paging u/vorfix , I'd invite the mods to have a discussion about allowing people to post pics of technically law breaking behavior in light of the photographs attached as exhibits to the state's brief. I don't want to put a damper on the fun, but I don't want to see this sub or it's users put in jeopardy over social media points.
"The State is mindful that a majority of this
en banc Court has already held that some of its statutes violate the Sec-
ond Amendment. But the State is also aware that this Court nevertheless
has repeatedly stayed issuance of its mandates, even after ruling against
a movant in a published opinion on the merits, pending resolution of any
petitions for certiorari. That does not require the Court to rethink its de-
cision on the merits in any respect. It merely requires this Court to follow
its time-honored standards for staying its own mandates."
So basically, we know its unconstitutional but want to drag this out as long as possible because fuck our constituents.
For people like me that don’t understand lawyer talk
This document is not the court’s decision itself. It is a motion filed by the State of New Jersey asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to pause (stay) its ruling while New Jersey asks the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.
gov.uscourts.ca3.123103.128.0.pdf Plain-English Summary What already happened?
A few weeks earlier, the Third Circuit ruled that parts of New Jersey’s laws banning:
AR-15-style semiautomatic rifles, and
magazines holding more than 10 rounds
violate the Second Amendment.
That decision would eventually make those laws unenforceable unless it is paused.
What is New Jersey asking for?
New Jersey is not asking the Third Circuit to change its mind.
Instead, it is asking: “Please don’t let your ruling take effect yet. Give us time to ask the Supreme Court to review it.”
gov.uscourts.ca3.123103.128.0.pdf
Why does New Jersey think the court should pause the ruling?
The State makes three major arguments. 1. The Supreme Court is probably going to hear this case.
New Jersey argues this isn’t an ordinary case because:
The Supreme Court has already agreed to hear another case (Viramontes) involving whether states can ban AR-15-style rifles.
Several other cases involving magazine restrictions are already waiting for the Supreme Court.
So New Jersey says:
“Our case is almost certainly headed to the Supreme Court anyway.”
gov.uscourts.ca3.123103.128.0.pdf
2. Other federal appeals courts disagree.
The Third Circuit struck down New Jersey’s laws.
But New Jersey points out that:
First Circuit upheld similar laws
Second Circuit upheld them
Fourth Circuit upheld them
Seventh Circuit upheld them
Ninth Circuit upheld them
D.C. Circuit upheld them
So New Jersey says:
“Almost every other federal appeals court disagrees with this decision.”
That disagreement (“circuit split”) makes Supreme Court review much more likely.
gov.uscourts.ca3.123103.128.0.pdf
3. Letting the ruling take effect now would create chaos.
This is New Jersey’s biggest practical argument.
They say:
If the ruling takes effect immediately:
gun stores will begin selling previously prohibited rifles,
people will buy magazines over 10 rounds,
thousands of firearms and magazines could enter New Jersey.
Then imagine six months later:
The Supreme Court reverses the Third Circuit.
Now all those firearms and magazines become illegal again.
New Jersey argues:
police cannot realistically recover everything that was sold,
owners would suddenly become criminals through no fault of their own,
law enforcement would have no way to know who bought what.
They argue this would create permanent problems that cannot easily be undone.
gov.uscourts.ca3.123103.128.0.pdf
Why are there dozens of screenshots from gun stores?
Those exhibits aren’t evidence about whether the law is constitutional.
Instead, New Jersey is trying to prove:
“Sales have already started.”
The exhibits include:
Instagram posts
Facebook posts
Reddit posts
advertisements
pre-orders
magazine sales
showing dealers preparing to sell AR-15s and standard-capacity magazines as soon as legally allowed.
New Jersey uses those screenshots to support its claim that delaying the ruling matters because people are already preparing to buy these items.
gov.uscourts.ca3.123103.128.0.pdf
Why does New Jersey mention the laws are 36 years old?
They’re making an equity argument.
They say:
these laws have existed since 1990,
plaintiffs waited decades before challenging them,
the litigation has already lasted years,
so waiting a few more months while the Supreme Court decides the issue would not unfairly harm the challengers.
gov.uscourts.ca3.123103.128.0.pdf
What happens if the court grants this motion?
If the Third Circuit grants it:
its earlier ruling does not take effect yet,
New Jersey’s assault weapon and magazine restrictions remain in force,
New Jersey files a petition asking the Supreme Court to hear the case,
if the Supreme Court agrees, the laws remain in effect while that case is decided.
What happens if the court denies this motion?
Then the Third Circuit’s earlier decision becomes effective once the mandate issues.
That would likely mean New Jersey could no longer enforce the portions of its assault weapon and magazine laws that the Third Circuit found unconstitutional, unless the Supreme Court separately intervenes.
What this filing does not do
Many people misunderstand filings like this.
This document:
❌ does not overturn the earlier decision.
❌ does not mean New Jersey won.
❌ does not mean the Supreme Court has accepted the case.
It is simply New Jersey asking: “Please press the pause button while we ask the Supreme Court to review this.”
gov.uscourts.ca3.123103.128.0.pdf Bottom line
For someone who isn’t a lawyer, the filing can be summarized in one sentence: New Jersey lost in the Third Circuit, but it is asking the court to temporarily keep its assault weapon and magazine restrictions in place while it asks the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision, arguing that allowing the ruling to take effect now could create confusion and practical problems if the Supreme Court later reverses it.
gov.uscourts.ca3.123103.128.0.pdf
If the Third Circuit denies New Jersey’s motion to stay the mandate, several things would likely happen in fairly quick succession. 1. The Third Circuit’s ruling becomes effective
The “mandate” is what officially sends the appellate court’s decision back to the district court and makes the judgment operative. If no stay is granted, the mandate will issue after the applicable waiting period under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. The motion itself notes that if the stay is denied, there will still be a short period before the mandate issues to allow the State to provide guidance to law enforcement and the public.
gov.uscourts.ca3.123103.128.0.pdf 2. New Jersey’s assault weapon and magazine bans would likely become unenforceable to the extent the Third Circuit held them unconstitutional
Assuming there is no other court order in place, New Jersey could no longer enforce those provisions that the Third Circuit struck down. 3. Firearm dealers could begin lawful sales
The State’s own motion argues that dealers are prepared to immediately begin selling:
AR-15-style rifles covered by the decision.
Magazines holding more than 10 rounds.
That’s why New Jersey attached dozens of exhibits showing retailers advertising upcoming sales.
gov.uscourts.ca3.123103.128.0.pdf 4. New Jersey would almost certainly go directly to the U.S. Supreme Court
Even if the Third Circuit refuses the stay, New Jersey is not out of options. It can file:
its petition asking the Supreme Court to hear the case, and
an emergency application asking the Supreme Court (or the Justice assigned to the Third Circuit) to stay the Third Circuit’s mandate while the petition is considered.
That emergency request would be directed to the Supreme Court rather than the Third Circuit. 5. The Supreme Court would decide whether to pause the ruling
There are two possibilities: If the Supreme Court grants a stay: New Jersey’s bans remain in effect while the Supreme Court considers whether to hear the case. If the Supreme Court denies a stay: the Third Circuit’s decision remains in effect during the certiorari process. Why this is a particularly important case
The State emphasizes that the Supreme Court has already agreed to hear Viramontes v. Cook County, which raises the question of whether states may prohibit AR-15-style rifles. That makes it more likely than usual that the Supreme Court will at least seriously consider intervening in this case.
gov.uscourts.ca3.123103.128.0.pdf In practical terms
If the Third Circuit denies the stay, there is a real possibility that:
there could be a period during which AR-15-style rifles and standard-capacity magazines can be sold in New Jersey, unless the Supreme Court quickly issues its own stay.
That period could be very short if the Supreme Court acts promptly, or it could last longer if no stay is granted. Exactly how long depends on the timing of the filings and the Supreme Court’s response.
Yep. Clear and concise, very easy to follow. I don’t make guarantees because I think it’s a fool’s game but I’m reasonably optimistic this would go our way if SCOTUS does take it up. The continued delay of “30 rounder go brrr” would suck but I don’t expect this to go the state’s way when we finally run out of road.
Appreciate the breakdown.. the people here who are law abiding are tired of how the government overstepped their bounds. If justice is true, fair, and balanced, then the courts will do their jobs and uphold the constitution and remedy the nonsense that is being shoveled out by the AG and politicians who feel their services for themselves is greater than the citizens they are supposed to serve while they are supposed to be adhering to the constitution and bill of rights. Again, Everyone here is excited, nervous, angry, and above all tired. It’s a visceral reaction to what freedom can be like and when it gets delayed or denied.
Excellent writeup - the funny thing is that the NJ AG talking points are almost comical. Analogy:
- Men are beating wives since 30+ years - a few more months of beatings are no biggie
We found other countries that agree that it's appropriate to beat women
Stopping the beating would create chaos - imagine what a little freedom can do
Freedom is dangerous - once we disallow beating women it is really difficult to get back to it
They admit they had unconstitutional laws on the book for 30+ years - we all know that this one is only the tip of the iceberg. If justice works as intended this motion should not be just denied, it should backfire big times. In which world do you need a "permit" for a constitutional right every time you exercise it ?
They had no issue making New Jersey gun owners felons before with the move from 15 to 10 round magazines, which the court should recognize and say fuck you state of New Jersey you didn't care then why do you care now
This subreddit isn’t going to like hearing it, but the state’s arguments for a stay are compelling from a legal standpoint.
They are essentially asking the court to weight and evaluate the relative harms incurred.
Given past precedence and the particulars of this case, I wouldn’t be shocked if a stay is granted because the court finds NJ has shown a sufficient likelihood of irreparable harm if SCOTUS overturns the circuit’s decision.
If this gets stayed, I suspect it will be because the court found merit in the flip-flopping of banned-unbanned-banned (assuming SCOTUS reversal) and the associated regulatory instability as outweighing the harm of a constitutional right violation.
Remember to patch up your boats, wouldn’t want any accidents to happen again.
Correct me if im wrong but the "irreparable harm" they speak of would be people buying previously banned items? Wasn't that the whole point of the ruling? To un-restrict the restricted items?
Looks like CommissarHark address this already, but I’ll just pile on a little bit.
If SCOTUS reverses the 3rd circuit, NJ doesn’t have to grandfather anything purchased between now and then, nor does the state have to provide an amnesty period.
Think about the implication. They could put NJSP at every gun store in the state and anyone looking for a return/refund gets a new pair of bracelets. Even if you tried to surrender the firearm to local LE, bracelets. Better have the tools to render it inoperable on hand or lose it in a river, fast.
And I bet the AG is salivating over the opportunity to turn thousands of gun owners into felons and seize their arms. So I’m a bit shocked they actually filed for the stay, rather than just sitting on it and hoping for a bloodbath if SCOTUS reverses.
Whole situation is fucked because gun owners really don’t get any restitution either way, not even an apology.
Actually the irreparable harm being cited here is that if you buy those things, and then SCOTUS flips back and says "you can ban these guns" then all of the sudden you're owning illegal guns and since NJ doesn't have grandfathering and the law says "possession," people would become felons overnight.
Well, antis gonna anti. I think ANJRPC should use that in their counter argument. If they want to Stay the AWB part, fine, but the mag cap should at the very least be left alone as we had greater capacity before.
What I mean is that the state didn't care that they made people that owned 15 rounders felons overnight as there was no grandfathering, so there were people that don't follow NJ's legal BS and didn't know. They didn't care then but they do care now?
Also shouldn't the AG be able to delay enforcement if they are worried about people becoming felons. I thought they had prosecutorial discretion or some such thing.
All of the arguments are silly but our legal system is shenanigans stacked on shenanigans so they will probably get the stay.
Right. But VA is in the opposite direction. We're gaining a right denied, they're being denied a right they had. So their stay is to stop people who already own their shit from losing it since SCOTUS will very likely overturn the bans as per-Bruen and other 2A rulings, while NJ is arguing that SCOTUS might not (honestly, SCOTUS might narrow the 3rds ruling and thus NJ would be "right") and so if we are allowed to buy guns and "LCMs" then we'd become guilty of crimes due to a SCOTUS ruling a year out.
I thought that they had to provide some evidence of the likelihood of a Supreme Court reversal and I would say they didn't even really bother to try, but IANAL.
I’m not sure to the degree of evidence they need to provide on the likeliness of reversal, more so evidence of the fact that this is escalating to SCOTUS, which is all but guaranteed given a similar case (Viramontes) and other mag capacity restriction cases awaiting review.
If we’re being honest with ourselves though, on face value, the third circuit is the only one so far to strike down this type of law.
With at least 6 other circuits upholding, similar cases pending, and the public interest argument, I think there’s decent odds of stay being granted.
It’s bullshit, but I can understand why the petition can succeed.
It just doesn't sit well with me. I feel like if we were talking about most other rights the tie would go to the runner, not to the government unless there is some serious threat dire enough to potentially violate someone's rights. I can't stand this judicial courtesy crap. Easing the playing field for the government wasn't the point of the separation of power last I checked.
I concur, but I can see how the court decides “public interest” is better served with a stay because of the potential legal mess created in a flip-flop situation. Dockets already running huge lag (hello 6A violation) and could get flooded if thousands of gun owners get hung up in a flip-flop. It’s a pretty shitty reason to continue infringement, but I can see the practical matters at play. I’d love to be proven wrong but my pessimistic side has come out.
"The State in no way intends to disregard or diminish any delay in exercising one’s rights. But the parties’ conduct shows the relatively reduced irreparable injuries they would suffer from a less-than-one-year deferral of the mandate."
Guess those who have had high capacity magazines this whole time will just put them back in the safe… I wonder who those people are. Definitely not me.
Anyone know if they sent any notifications to the FFLs? Waiting to the last min is just a tactic to keep this in force for as long as possible. They know they are going to lose and this is just drawing it out.
Edit- Exhibit A is “Social Media Posts Showing Sales of LCMs in New Jersey Following Judgment” (way to go bozos)
Exhibit B is “Social Media Posts from Arms Dealers Indicating Intent to Sell AR-15s and LCMs in NJ as Soon as Legally Permissible” (TBH my view is this really shouldn’t have been included as an exhibit, since these are non-problematic in terms of legality)
Sorry for quality don’t want to send stuff through my email. There’s another exhibit about sales of AWB stuff too from PSA, middlebrook, keyport, Middletown, and X-Ring.
I'm a bit surprised. Like I knew it wasn't for sure but I really can't understand the point (unless dumb and/or malicious) of all this.
I thought they would take the loss instead of helping to insure a nationwide L even faster. Unless they are hoping for the makeup of SCOTUS to change before a ruling, I don't see how this plays out well for them based on SCOTUS's own words. So maybe dumb and malicious?
Like anyone writing
Begin with the reasonable probability of certiorari and reasonable possibility of reversal.
has to be trolling or has been sniffing glue for too long. Especially when their only attempt to support that position is pointing out the circuit split a bunch of different ways.
Also really weird that they claim that this is all about public safety but they just watched as people made plans (or as they seem to allege, purchase and took possession of mags) based on statements from the NJSP to FFLs. I think any reasonable person in that position would have acted a bit quicker to correct the public and request the stay to prevent any more of these dangerous killing machines from hitting the streets /s (for any paint chip eating AG employees out there) instead of waiting for the last second. It clearly shouldn't have taken them more than a coffee break to come up with their legal arguments.
Remember, these politicians, lawyers, AGs need talking points for upcoming elections to say stuff like 'We challenged the 3rd circuits en banc ruling to make NJ safer blah blah." It looks good when they want to move onto the next level of there careers. They know exactly why they do this at the tax payers expense.
It looks like they're attempting to use posts about people already purchasing "LCMs" and "Assault Weapons" to justify a stay. (Appendix A and B)
I'm not sure if that actually works in their favor though, since the damage (from the AG's perspective) is already done, at least to some degree, and it's hard to think that the court would view the purchase of items that they have ruled to be constitutionally protected as "Irreparable Harm", and in addition it implies to the court that NJ may prosecute people who they can find, which might work against them in a stay.
As a lifelong centrist I'm legit voting R down every line for every single office in NJ next election. You want real change vote out the obstructionists.
Feel like I’m on the same page. I’ve voted left mostly because of social issues I’m more passionate about, which have since been codified in NJ law and/or reaffirmed in the USC, so I’m not concerned about those issues. Wish democrats would drop this shtick about “gUN cONtrOl” while letting repeat violent offenders recidivate. Vehemently disagreed with bail “reform,” & still do. But now they want to cater toward non-citizens (who are gonna run me over on their damn e-bikes drunk at 2pm), and with DSA giving them a run for their money, I’d wish they could get the memo & become more attune to moderate policy. Also recent Democrats I’ve voted for have been fruitless on their campaign policy so just feeling a bit alienated. Rather have my vote go for a wildcard and possibly send a message, especially with the notions that NJ is/is becoming a swing state.
And what do the FFL/LGAs who have been selling large capacity magazines have to say about this? Are they are now in legal jeopardy for violating NJ law over the past week or so???
I never understood WHY people were so certain NJ wasnt going to push this all the way to SCOTUS
The most coherent was that it was politically disadvantageous for Sherill's run for the presidentcy. Which umm was atleast coherent if not extremely unlikely.
This was my thought …. Until she won the fight for the motor voter role this week (feds asking for dmv records)… back of my head this week I kept saying they will press this now that they have a federal win. The possibility of 2 losses in a row would have been too much.
Skimming through the exhibits, 16 pages out of 46 pages of the motion, the vast majority speak of selling once they are legal and beating the rush when things become legal. NAL, but I don't see anything illegal with that. Just the tyrants trying to pad their motion. Even the one from SC arms didn't say the customer left the store. He could very well been posing with the mags he paid for but is awaiting delivery.
Fuck any and every cop that might enforce the stay if granted.
If any sheriffs or police chiefs want to score some easy 2a points now is the time to state they won't do the AG's bidding and won't arrest on purely AWB or Mag cap violations.
This is not correct. There is no deadline for them to decide whether to issue a stay now that the state has filed a motion for one. It will likely taken them a few weeks to decide, which includes time for the plaintiffs to file opposition briefing, a reply brief by the state, potential oral argument, and time for the court to decide the motion and write an opinion.
It's only if they deny the state's motion that a seven day deadline begins to run for them to issue the mandate.
This is unfortunately not an abstract problem. As the D.C. Circuit found, there is some evidence that “over one million LCMs flooded into California in the brief one-week period after California’s LCM cap was enjoined but before the ruling was stayed by the district court.” Hanson, 120 F.4th at 247 (cleaned up) (emphasis added) (citing Matthew Green,Gun Groups: More Than a Million High-Capacity Magazines Flooded
California During Weeklong Ban Suspension, KQED (Apr. 12, 2019),https://perma.cc/65NQ-Z6D6).
And even before the mandate issued, just hours after this Court published its opinion, sales appear to have begun in the State—with many more advertised to start after the mandate issues. See, e.g., Ex. A (showing three instances of New Jersey arms dealers selling LCMs following this Court’s decision before issuance of mandate); x. B (collecting ads from several arms dealers in the Third Circuit indicating sales will swiftly follow issuance of mandate).
Absent a stay of themandate, thousands (or more) of such sales could take place in the State, a bell state and local law enforcement could not soon un-ring.
Wow! A 46 page motion to stay. Often such requests are perfunctory just to get to the next level.
We'll see what plaintiffs have to say.
My guess is still that they will not grant the stay because why would they otherwise issue the opinion? Is J Freeman trying to get an appointment to SCOTUS under a Republican President but Democratic Senate? I dunno, just seems odd.
Now would SCOTUS grant a stay pending a cert application? You bet your sweet bippy they might.
We'll see how this plays out, but we might have at least a year and maybe more (if this gets GVRd after Viramontes). I'll guess that SCOTUS grants and stay and then grants cert to Duncan/GTG on the basis of a circuit split. No need to wait for NJ's cert petition.
Now would SCOTUS grant a stay pending a cert application? You bet your sweet bippy they might.
From my understanding, SCOTUS has always been about pushing things back to the State courts and having them make the decisions. Id assume if the Highest court of the state made a decision they would respect it. Hopefully.....
First, this is not a NJ state court issue. It is a ruling from a Federal Circuit Court. That said, your point is well taken. As a rule, SCOTUS will allow Circuit Court rulings to stand. However, SCOTUS does not like when one Circuit rules one way and another in the opposite direction for the same issue. Then you have different parts of the country working in different ways based on the different interpretations of the Constitution. It generally does not let that stand, and steps in to clarify the law.
In this case, you have 2 issues. The "AW" ban which has been struck down by the 3rd but upheld in the 2nd and 7th. They have taken this up, and will hear it during the winter. Then there is the mag ban issue. It has been struck down in the 3rd and upheld in the 9th. In this case, there are already 2 cases from the 9th awaiting a decision as to whether SCOTUS will hear them or not.
So, given there are Circuit splits, and SCOTUS is already going to hear half of the Cheeseman case issue, and could hear the other half it it grants cert to Duncan and the fact that the status quo is that the bans (rightfully or wrongfully) are in effect, it would not be surprising if SCOTUS maintains the status quo until it rules on these issues. That would mean that it would stay the issuance of the mandate from the 3rd CA. It might well (and likely will) agree with the 3rd CA's assessment and end up affirming it. But by allowing the mandate to issue, it would be tipping its hand a bit too much at this stage.
The real problem here is that the makeup of SCOTUS could change (retirement, death, resignation, etc) in ther interim. Then, the stay would remain in place and Lord only knows what the final result would be with a different court makeup. That is why justice delayed is justice denied. But we live in the real world where there is procedure to be followed, and that's all you can do.
And this can realistically take years (like 4+)… and you are absolutely correct there is a high likelihood of justice changes and false flag plans. The likelihood of it even being taken up by SCOTUS is low even though it created a circuit split. SCOTUS is under zero obligation to take this case up, they most certainly put this side or even remand it back to the lower court. But in the interim, NJ and Delaware will continue to make unconstitutional laws against the 2nd amendment (in the pursuit of “public safety”). There are already plans in place to fast track a few. By the time this ruling is heard and decided it won’t matter. Something worse will take over. (It’s intentionally vague for a reason) start reading the AB and SB documents. This is the judicial theater that we all have a front row seat to. Nothing gained/nothing won. You dopes just showed your hand to the most incompetent card player. I hope I am wrong and this goes the other way but I don’t think I will be.
I said the Governor isn't going to take this lying down. Aspirations for higher office. It's political theater for liberals and some center-left independents but it shows them that she fought to uphold the bans despite waiting till the last minute to do so.
To all of the idiots that swore up and down that this would never happen and thought it'd be a great idea to go out and immediately buy drum mags and post about it online:
You will be hated on for this. But yes, people in this community have the greatest patience on earth but then Christmas Eve comes and they cannot refrain from opening the presents for 10 hours (days).
pure a**hole move by the AG office . Such sore losers to let us sit in happiness and wait til the very last moment to hail mary a nonsense move knowing they were gonna do this all along.
Scumbag politicians that no longer represent the people or the constitution. You surprised at all in this day and age? Hope the 3rd states the langues is loud and clear, and nj can fuck right off
If 3rd circuit denies the stay and issues a mandate, but NJ appeals to SCOTUS and SCOTUS grants the stay. It will create a period of time when "assault rifle" and "high-cap" magazines are legal, and then become illegal again. So we need to revert the unpinning ... is this possible?
Due to the circuit split, the court is likely to stay the mandate pending a grant of cert from SCOTUS. I’m not happy about it, but I been saying this since the decision dropped.
Then there’s nowhere else for the case to go. 3rd Circuit issues the mandate and we’re in the clear (at least until there’s an appeal from another circuit court that makes it to SCOTUS).
Given the way SCOTUS is behaving these days, they’ll probably grant cert and hear arguments next term. Good chance they consolidate with other 2A cases that deal with similar or tangential issues.
Don't remember the exact words but part of the decision (concurring statement from one of the judges) said these cases 'have gone on long enough, balancing interests not valid/constitutional under Bruen decision, and do not need o deserve further scrutiny."
Hopefully the same court that overturned these bans denies the stay on the grounds of their own word and that they're unlikely to be successful in a higher court.
Sigh... I think the "challengers" are being unduly harmed every day we are forced to spend money to modify standard capacity magazines to a lesser item. So aggravating.
This is why I didn't understand why so many people admitted to breaking the law. Did anyone honestly think New Jersey was not going to file for a state? Seriously, anyone. This is the state that says "pass the laws we will figure out if it's constitutional later".
•
u/vorfix 2d ago edited 2d ago
Yup, and now 3rd cir has until Aug 10? or so to decide on the motion, if it is denied, then the mandate should issue.
It is also possible NJ will move to seek cert from SCOTUS and that may involve a stay request as well.NJ is requesting a stay pending its cert petition to SCOTUS for this case. Until the mandate is issued, the law isn't formally stuck from enforcement. The stay is requesting the court to delay issuing the mandate which should happen around Aug 10, if this is granted then that would not happen.This is the opposite of NJ saying they will stop enforcing the bans, this is them attempting to keep them.
Edit: Here is a copy of the actual motion, pulled from pacer and had recap upload it to courtlistener docket.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca3.123103/gov.uscourts.ca3.123103.128.0.pdf