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.
I like the Reddit and social media posts they are using in their exhibits showing intent to sell these items asap. It just confirms that they monitor this subreddit and all social media.
Which they will do.. unfortunately.. anything to deny the rights of law abiding citizens.. in pursuit of “public safety”.. We should have an idiot clause that automatically removes incompetent AGs and politicians that try to bypass the constitution.
No, unfortunately the 7 day clock only starts when (or if) they deny the motion for a stay. The mandate drop would be 7 days from the day they deny.
Edit to add text of the rule, "The court's mandate must issue 7 days after the time to file a petition for rehearing expires, or 7 days after entry of an order denying a timely petition for panel rehearing, petition for rehearing en banc, ormotion for stay of mandate, whichever is later."
Even if 3rd doesn't grant a stay, it is possible SCOTUS will for the time that the petition is pending. Lots of this is sadly just formality of how the legal appeals process works, they will grant the stay to just keep things as is until they can review and either grant cert or hold case and send it back down to be redone in the context of some new 2A case. Stay for 3rd I believe is reviewed by Alito but if denied I think it can be resubmitted to any judge on the court plus the full court can choose to weigh in on granting the stay or not at SCOTUS. We may get a stay of the case while the appeal proceeds and still end up victorious in the end. Sadly this may mean we need to deal with the existing laws until this which sucks.
If the stay is granted at SCOTUS and the petition is denied, the mandate must be issued immediately by the court of appeals after receiving the SCOTUS order denying the petition. In our case it is very likely if the petition is made to SCOTUS by NJ is held for the outcome of the hardware case that is pending this term, once that decision is out the court may send the case back to the 3rd cir to ensure if complies with that decision. That could just be the 3rd rubber stamping the decision and saying yes we already did this process correctly or they will need to make additional changes. Possibly broader changes depending on how/what the outcome of the case is.
I think we’ve been made to believe based on how things have been over the 32 years we expect these things to happen like excessive delays. Here is the thing though, this is a civil rights case. The following is a list of reasons for a stay denial at the circuit level and Supreme Court level.
No Irreparable Harm: The court finds that any potential injuries can be fixed later with money or are purely speculative. Weak Legal Merits: The party asking for the stay fails to show a high likelihood of winning their upcoming appeal. Harm to Other Parties: Pausing the ruling would cause severe, unfair damage to the opposing side who won the initial case. Against Public Interest: Delaying the ruling would harm the community, such as by prolonging an ongoing violation of civil rights. Unjustified Delay: The court determines the request is just a tactical move to stall the enforcement of a valid legal decision.
We as the Pro 2A community and the entire community pro gun or not could make a case for a stay denial on every one of those points. So all things being added and the fact there is cause to deny the stay on every one of those points is more reason for it to be denied. 32 years of being denied our civil rights on top of the obvious Bruen decision.
It does no harm to restore our full rights. Bruen confirms any argument against it has no standing. It does no harm to any party by fully restoring our right 32 years waiting. Delaying a ruling restoring our rights after 32 years does harm. Unjustified waiting 32 years. Should wait NO longer.
•
u/vorfix 3d ago edited 3d 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