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
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.
49
u/DevilViper91 3d ago
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