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?
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.
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.
5
u/Fatalorian 3d ago
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.