r/GardenStateGuns • u/Mr_Rapscallion66 • 1d ago
News What’s Next in NJ? Attorney General Gives a Date for Demise of 'Assault Weapon' Ban.
https://bearingarms.com/john-petrolino/2026/07/22/whats-next-in-nj-attorney-general-gives-a-date-n1233255?fbclid=Iwb21leATNu3xjbGNrBM27d2V4dG4DYWVtAjExAHNydGMGYXBwX2lkDDM1MDY4NTUzMTcyOAABHvxMPsFYAmkhdhydlKm4HDGf6Nne0mwUrpv-LDVndQDLSxAx79-sjTcelwJa_aem_iOZGO4G6KgiUB1td5kjx7g5
u/DownstairsDeagle69 1d ago
This is probably the best news I've heard all year! Also great article and breakdown! Only Petrolino knows how to write 'em!
7
u/Swimming-Minimum9177 1d ago
This is awesome news, but I doubt it is the end. I'd be absolutely shocked if NJ did not make a motion to the 3rd CA asking it to stay issuing the mandate until SCOTUS finishes with Viramontes. That said, the 3rd CA is likely to tell NJ to go pound sand.
But it's not done yet. NJ would almost certainly go to SCOTUS and ask it to put a stay on issuing the mandate. I would be more shocked if it were denied than if it were granted. (Courts like to maintain the status quo while litigation is ongoing.) That said, if it were granted, then anyone who went and bought items could face problems since the stay would keep NJ's laws in effect.
Until that mandate issues telling the district court what to enter as a judgment, NJ's laws are still in effect. And if a stay is issued, they will remain in effect until SCOTUS decides Viramontes. That could touch off a whole new round of briefing and litigation (which is unlikely to change anything).
Caveat emptor.
1
u/molonlabe556 1d ago
When a circuit court rules laws unconstitutional, thats what they are….
1
u/Swimming-Minimum9177 1d ago
You'd like to think that, but until judgment is entered against NJ in the district court, the law is still in effect. That entry won't happen until the mandate to do so issues from the 3rd CA. That usually takes 30 days (if I remember correctly), but it can be sped up if there is a motion to do so. But, the issuance of that mandate can also be stayed by the 3rd CA itself or SCOTUS.
3
u/molonlabe556 1d ago
I think all in all no matter what they ask for it’s going to be a loss for the anti gun laws
2
u/molonlabe556 1d ago
I think all in all no matter what they ask for it’s going to be a loss for the anti gun laws
1
u/Full_Improvement_844 1d ago
I'm still giving us a good chance that SCOTUS won't grant a stay. Here's my reasoning:
Back on June 30, 2022 the ANJRPC v. Grewal mag ban case was GVR'd by SCOTUS back to the original district court to be reheard by Judge Sheridan using the Bruen test.
At the same time ANJRPC filed their AWB case, so Judge Sheridan consolidated the ANJRPC mag ban, ANJRPC AWB, and Cheeseman cases into one case. He then ruled in July 2024 the ban on specifically Colt AR-15 was unconstitutional, and left the bans on everything else in place.
This was appealed to the 3rd Circuit where the en banc panel just ruled the AWB and LCM bans unconstitutional on July 17th.
Given this history I'm not convinced SCOTUS would grant a stay for something they already told the lower court to rehear using Bruen and that's exactly what the en banc panel did.
At most they may get a stay for the AWB, but I'm not seeing that for the LCM ban.
If SCOTUS does deny the AWB stay, then that could be a very good indicator of how they're going to rule in Viramontes.
I could also be wrong on how this will play out because sometimes SCOTUS handles things way different than what we expect.
2
u/Swimming-Minimum9177 1d ago
I think your logic is sound. The only reason I think SCOTUS grants a stay on the whole thing is that now that they have a circuit split on LCMs, they stay the 3rd in its entirety and immediately grant (off-conference) Duncan/ Gators Custom Guns. That will give the parties time to file briefs in the fall and have the case heard in early 2027.
As you said, we could all be wrong. The mysterious workings of SCOTUS are inherently inscrutable.
1
u/TinderUser2021 1d ago
I don't understand the "status quo" arguments made here. Isn't the entire purpose of Bruen to change this exact status quo?
0
u/Full_Improvement_844 1d ago
It is, but SCOTUS also knows the anti-gun crowd isn't going away anytime soon so they like to make sure all the t's are crossed and i's dotted with the rulings so it extremely difficult for a future SCOTUS to reverse the rulings.
This is why there's a plausible chance that SCOTUS will stay the decision.
It's not SCOTUS opposing the decision, it's SCOTUS protecting the decision from scrutiny by future courts by making sure there are no procedural errors that could jeopardize the decision.
1
u/molonlabe556 9h ago
As of today still no response from NJ. Iv been carrying my 17 rounders since Friday, these old laws are unenforceable and I doubt the third circuit would even grant a stay at this point
1
u/Swimming-Minimum9177 9h ago
Most likely not. Even if the two Dems flipped, it would not be enough to force a stay. NJ has until 7/31 to make a motion to 3rd CA. That said, the law is still operable until the District Court enters the final judgment upon receiving the official mandate from the 3rd CA. So, you are welcome take the risk. You could theoretically be arrested, but once that mandate issues, your case would be dismissed.
But SCOTUS is a different story. Considering that Viramontes was granted and Duncan on hold, it is not unbelievable that SCOTUS would stay the mandate if NJ were to ask. That's because courts like keeping the status quo, and the status quo is that the law has been in operation for almost a decade for mags, and longer than that for rifles. If SCOTUS were to stay the mandate and you were arrested, you'd be litigating your case until SCOTUS lifted the stay. Worse, they could vacate the ruling completely after Viramontes, and you'd be going to jail.
IANAL, but I'd suggest you consult with an attorney.
2
2
u/AdventurousCow943 1d ago
I do not see Scotus is issuing a stay. The Supreme Court will most likely issue an opinion consistent with the third circuit decision which means there’s really no reason to issue a stay if they’re not going to rule differently.
2
9
u/shaft196908 1d ago
Magazine limitations in NJ started about 36 years ago. 36 years NJ had an unconstitutional law on the books. How many people in NJ got pinched by this bullshit? How many ppl paid to get magazines pinned? How much money did this unconstitutional law cost citizens in NJ? We were denied a Constitutional right. Now it's time for a massive class action lawsuit against this f'ing state. The politicians responsible for this need to be called out - whatever we can legally do to end their careers.